New Haven Independent

The prosecutor, Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane (pictured), testified and answered lawmakers’ questions for more than two hours regarding the fine points of several “Three Strikes” bills that would keep those convicted of a third felony in prison for the rest of their lives.

Altogether, the Judiciary Committee heard testiomny on 15 bills at its public hearing Wednesday afternoon, including several that were introduced as a direct result of the murders of three members of the Petit family in July 2007.

Judiciary Co-Chair Rep. Mike Lawlor (D-East Haven) said, if there is a mandatory all or nothing penalty for persistent violent offenders, “One concern I would have is they would look more like death penalty cases. What impact would that have on the system?”

Kane answered, “I think certainly it would cause more defendants to say, ‘What do I have to lose? I’ll have a trial.’ There’d be no incentive for them to plead guilty, and the biggest impact would be the delay” that would cause.

Lawlor (on left in picture) was also concerned that some of the bills under debate would increase the number of crimes that could trigger the Three Strikes law.

Republican Sen. Sam Caliguri (Waterbury) said he wanted to reduce prosecutorial and judicial discretion and make it easier to put away those convicted of three felonies. Another Republican, Rep. Al Adinolfi (in whose district the Petit family lived), said that people in Cheshire — “and all over the state” — are putting deadbolt locks not only on their outside doors, but on their bedroom doors. He implied that victims and potential victims of crime should not have to live in fear, and they’d be safer if such repeat violent offenders are locked up for good.

Meanwhile, members of the general public (including New Havener Sally Joughin, pictured) were patiently waiting their turn to speak. Before the hearing began, Joughin explained that she was there to testify on a bill her group, People Against Injustice, had submitted for the second time, to create an advisory commission for the Department of Correction. They tried to get it passed last year, but it never came up for a vote.

She said the advisory commission would be composed of 16 members “who would look at the Department of Correction, report on what they find, make recommendations, give advice, suggest legislation and give a report to the General Assembly and the public.”

The commission would include 16 people, or their designees: leaders of the Judiciary Committee, the heads of the African American Affairs Commission, the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, the Commission on Protection and Advocacy for People With Disabilities; and eight community members: two former prisoners; two family members of current or former prisoners; two members of the faith community and two community advocates.

Joughin was asked if she thought the bill had a better chance of passing this year, since the failures of the criminal justice system have been so tragically exposed with the murders in Cheshire (where the long juvenile record of one of the accused was not reviewed by the parole commission before granting him parole). Joughin said, “Our bill is asking for transparency. Taxpayers are paying $700 million for the DOC, and they deserve to know everything that’s going on. Perhaps if they’d known about the process of parole, something might have been different with the supervision of the people who got out, or if there was more transparency about people who re-enter communities after being in prison, that could help too.”