New Haven Independent

Posted by: lance | May 6, 2009 2:55 PM

translation: it's all whitey's fault.

Posted by: anon | May 6, 2009 3:00 PM

Thanks for covering this! A more effective justice and prisoner re-entry system is needed if we're ever going to stop the cycle of poverty and youth violence. No wonder the police have a bad rep. They should be going after gun toters, muggers, disorderly ATVs and drivers who exceed the 25 mile per hour limit, not poor young kids carrying around a few bags of drugs.

Posted by: citizen | May 6, 2009 3:43 PM

Well it is nice to see that someone is given a second chance and that he takes it and do the right thing and become a model citizen and try help these young ones in the street. good job

Posted by: Pedro | May 6, 2009 3:53 PM

Anon- exactly. This kid is possibly facing years of jail time for something if he was caught a few blocks over at Yale would have gotten him a stern talking-to, if anything.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | May 6, 2009 4:34 PM

This prosecutor want to give Vaughn 8 years - min of 4 served for a dime bag of weed and a prior at $50??? No wonder our state prisons are overcrowded. Sending this type of offender to jail for this small infraction is just silly. It's not only expensive for taxpayers, it practically guarantees Vaughn will come out more jaded, more educated in criminal behaviors and much more likely to re-offend. This will cement his future. This kid is exactly who should be in this program as a last ditch effort to help him turn his life around. If this sentence goes down, the prosecutor will have just helped Vaughn throw his life away.

Posted by: Greg Smith | May 6, 2009 4:50 PM

well lance i guess you do not have kids

Posted by: me | May 6, 2009 4:52 PM

"no wonder the police have a bad rep" For locking up drug dealers? Only in New Haven!

Posted by: funky chicken | May 6, 2009 5:11 PM

What a load of bleeding hart BS. I live in a part of the city where these "kids" are rampant (sadly that can be almost anywhere). If you look at these "kids" the wrong way they will attack you and should you tell them to get out of here with your drug activity you practically signed your own death warrant. I tell my friends and neighbors if they see these "kids" give them a wide berth and don't make eye contact.

I commend the PD for taking strong steps to stop these drug dealers. They are the ones standing on our street corners selling and bring crime in to our neighborhoods. Now with the Narc Squad back up I hope they take out all levels of drug dealers.

To the lady who said that the state is thinking of legalizing pot - now it is illegal and they are only talking about medical use. Once again all levels of dealers should be taken out.

Is prison the only answer? No - I think a strong financial incentive (fines) should be imposed. This way it will not pay to sell the drugs. Make them work for the state if they can't pay off the fine.

No more coddling the criminals - make them safe for all!

Posted by: norton street | May 6, 2009 5:22 PM

this kid doesnt have to "turn his life around". he shouldnt need to be "given a second chance". its marajuana, who cares? this particular person is not a violent offender whose drug dealing is destroying communities. at most, he should try to steer slightly to a more productive road in life, which he seems to be doing, but to characterize him as someone on a downward spiral that will end horribly because of his bag of weed is ridiculous.

when the police caught him they should have confiscated his weed and then left, no need to do more than that.

me, your post is so played out, how about adding something to the conversation instead of just letting poop unfurl out of your fingers tips onto the keyboard.

lance,
translation: youre corny, son. everytime you post, a species dies out, an angel loses its wings, and we all become dumber for having read whatever it is youve just posted.

pedro, good point, the amount of marajuana use in colleges eclipses anything out on the streets of new haven. its like if you get into school, then you can smoke with little repercussions if caught, but god forbid you didnt get into college and you get caught, well then its 3-5. absolutely insane.

i know at my school, you get fined and kicked out of housing for week if your caught with weed, but its automatic expulsion for fighting and man is it hard not to fight with so many 'roided up ... walking around.

Posted by: anon | May 6, 2009 5:34 PM

The state (aka taxpayers) is currently spending over a million dollars to lock non-violent people up from a single block of New Haven (look up the "milion dollar blocks project"). Not to mention the money lost when the person gets out and has little chance of finding a job, even with costly social service intervention.

This is the wrong approach, ME, and it trickes down to destroy all other aspects of society.

For violent offenders, I'm all for locking them up for good (since even minor violence indirectly costs society enormous amounts of money), but the incarceration rates are high because of non-violent offenses, not violent ones.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | May 6, 2009 8:07 PM

Norton Street - Getting convicted of selling or possessing drugs affects one's eligibility to recieve federal student aide. I'd hardly refer to this as "little repercussions if caught".

Based on the story above, a sentence of 4 years minimum is just not reality. No one with any sense accepts the first offer. That offer will eventually get knocked down to no more than a year, and after serving 80% of the time, he could get off in 10 months. Assuming there is even any time served. I've seen people with *federal* heroin sale convictions get 6 year sentences, and felony firearm possessions released after 3 years, so 4 years TS is doubtful for this dude. I'm not sure what the sentencing schedule is for a 2nd offense $50 sale (although norml.com lists 5 years as max) so his milage may vary.

I laugh at those of you making excuses for dude though. I don't condemn nor condone is actions, but it was foolish of him to get caught, twice. The courts and jail are all part of the game which he seems ill equipped to play.

All things being equal, the profits of a street level drug dealer are meager at best. After subtracting for the opportunity costs of having an arrest record, court appearances, lawyer fees, fines and jail time (during which period your earning potential is $0) even a slightly better than minimum wage job offers more income potential. Just food for thought.

BTW - I reserve all rights to blame whitey (tho I don't see anyone doing that in this article), lance be damned.

Posted by: WilburCrossGrad | May 6, 2009 9:57 PM

Norton Street - Thank you for making me laugh out loud after the sadness of this article. I appreciate it.

Growing up in New Haven, I had friends from both the city and surrounding suburbs. As a teenager, it became apparent that my upper-class white friends from East Rock and suburbs like Guilford and Branford did waaay more drugs and alcohol than any of the poorer kids from the Hill, Fair Haven, or Newhallville that I went to school with.

Some of these suburban/upper class friends sold as well, but it was tempered by the fact that they knew they had college careers and prospects for success waiting for them and couldn't fuck it up. And if they really got into trouble, then they were able to finagle their way into community service, or their parents sent them to private counselors or out-of-state rehab joints.

I am saddened when I think about how so many of my peers in New Haven, having started off with a lot of odds against them already, ended up being criminalized in a way that impacted their identities, job prospects and educational opportunities.

Alcohol kills waaayyy more people per year and causes more of a direct cost to society than marijuana every could. Yet one is legal and the other puts you in jail where you must learn to live the identity of a criminal among other criminals, where to survive you have to become hardened and perhaps violent in a way that wasn't even necessary before, only to come out and have no one want to hire you due to your record and lack of skills. How does this change a person? How does this make society a safer place to live? How is this fair?

Posted by: Ben Ross | May 6, 2009 10:54 PM

WOW the cops and police need a course in PR.....
common sense tells us things that grow are legal ...law against things that grow are dumb....people enforcing dumb laws need to quit or be fired and look for other work. The dirty dope cops (AKA (Officer White) in new haven ....what happened to them?
What were the basics of community policing?
As I remember they were popular and, according to the press, effective.

Posted by: Ben Ross | May 6, 2009 11:18 PM

Been called worse..gets a lot correct.....if you ain't good at dealing don't do it! I love it (not) a search warrant to bust less than 4 oz
.....these keystone boneheads gotta be on the pad
was it that homey didn't want to pay for protection? About whitee well
Equal before the law...forget it....billy White the new haven cop/crime wave got 3 years....that's what
cptv says...." newhaven.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/2008/nh042808.htm " ....wonder what he will actually serve (as hard time)?
After guilty pleas of the bonds men and the FBI's extensive evidence of his crimes 3-30 years would be a lot closer to ?, if harm to the fabric of community was any part of this justice system.

Posted by: Alan Felder | May 6, 2009 11:57 PM

How about the war that is being wage against our Black youth, using M-4 rifle, what will be next, humvee and tanks.

Posted by: visitor | May 7, 2009 6:49 AM

at least 4 years served for some pot?! that is an absolute farce. the man who tried to break into my apartment and attack me only got a few months! and that was with an extensive record of burglary and assault...... twisted priorities.

Posted by: Rev. Samuel T. Ross-Lee | May 7, 2009 6:53 AM

Paul,

Why do you have a picture of this young H.S. kid in this story. It is necessary to taint him with this situation especially given the fact that he has been convicted of nothing.

I rarely, if ever, see pictures of young white boys and girls in stories about the use or possession of small amounts of marijuana. But you, and other media outlets, never fail to attach a Black face to these type of stories given the chance, which gives the impression of illegal drugs in America equal Black people.

This ain't right, Paul.

Posted by: True New Havener | May 7, 2009 9:42 AM

Rev. Ross-Lee,

While normally I would agree with your cogent argument, in this case I think Paul had an agenda which made the photo appropriate. When looking at this teenager, he is just that -- a kid.

He looks about as threatening as a stuffed animal and his own comments reinforce that he was caught up in something he simply does not understand. As other commenters have noted, this kid would not be getting anything like this treatment if he had been born in a nearby town or was going to Yale. Given the nature of the photo and interview, there is little doubt that Paul asked if he could take the picture. Lacking the picture this article would not be as effective.

The whole story is about the absurdity of a small time drug dealer who has been caught with $50 of pot being ineligible for New Haven's supposed new "High Pint" initiative.

If any kid should be eligible, it's this one.

And this goes to a larger problem developing at the NHPD since our new chief took over. Aside from dismantling community policing, the chief has been focused on public relations to make it seem like he is offering a kinder, gentler style of 1970s policing, while taking us back to a very different period in New Haven policing.

In the last year, he has brought us cops with dogs, machine guns and tasers without the recording devices asked for by the board of aldermen.

I frequently disagree with Paul's apparently shotgun approach to disliking almost anything the Mayor does, but in this case Paul is using a very accurate rifle. He has consistently called out the pretty face sitting on a rotting corpse that is this new policing strategy.

But your comment here definitely adds to the conversation and is thought provoking.

Posted by: Rev. Samuel T. Ross-Lee | May 7, 2009 10:22 AM

True New Havener,

The issue that I point to in talking about this photo and this story is not JUST about THIS kid or THIS photo.

The issue here is a larger one of which the media should take note. The issue here is that virtually every time a picture is attached to an illegal drug story it's a Black face. It is the preponderance of this type of matching that makes it so vile, and in this case it hardly seemed necessary or fair. Do you think the picture would have been left out if the kid herein describe were a violent drug dealer with a "baby face"? I don't think so.

So even if Paul is making a point about this kid, being a kid, and being treated unfairly by the NHPD, the courts, the city or whomever, Paul is ALSO treating him unfairly by the taint of his image being next to this drug story.

And let's face it how many people actually read and remember the DETAILS of news stories anyway. But what they will remember, no doubt, is that "another" black youth was involved with illegal drugs, and this particular kid will be tainted with that memory.

Again, not fair.

Posted by: bfair | May 7, 2009 10:47 AM

This story depicts just how flawed the American system of justice is. Corrupt police officers and other white collar criminals serve mere months (if any time)for inexcusable criminal acts and a young kid smokes leaves of a plant and/or sells $50 worth of that plant and faces 8 years in prison. Wow!!! What de he do to deserve 8 years? Inhale?

Posted by: Greg Smith | May 7, 2009 5:37 PM

I am lost for words. I agree with most of the comments on this blog. I see the point Paul was driving at. This kid is a prime candidate for the second chance program. However, because of a prior the prosecutor feels he should do 8 suspended after 4 served. That is ridiculous at its best. This is a kid who is obviously have not turn that corner of maturity yet. This kid should not be in court facing that kind of charge for what I consider to be a petty charge. Drug war, what drug war. There are no CARTELS on the streets of New Haven. The largest bust made in New Haven history was what 1 kilo or so the other day, that is nothing compared to the drugs coming into the United States from the Drug Cartels. 5 GRAMS OF CRACK 5 YEARS. 500 GRAMS of Powder 5 years. Who is most likely to have 5 grams of crack and who is most likely to have 500 grams of powder. Something is wrong with that picture. Whats the bottom line, the Judicial system is broken for minorities and the less fortunate.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | May 7, 2009 11:13 PM

Upon re-reading this article and comments, one salient point that I missed upon the first read (like everyone else I personified the story to Raheem and the trials he is going through) is that this Project Restart is FLOUNDERING.

"I have no clue" whom she'll be working with yet, or how, Cain said Wednesday. "I'm just waiting to be notified who is in the program. I don't even have the names yet. It hasn't gotten off the ground yet. It's still with [Assistant] Chief [Pete] Reichard."

So there is a (rough) plan, but no timeline to implementation, otherwise there would be a goal ("We expect to have this thing up and running by August", etc..). Pete Reichard is a competent man, quite capable of getting this thing of the ground. And Monique is a good choice, but to not dedicate an officer to this fulltime and have her position there still be "Victim's Services Officer" shows this "Project Restart" doesn't even warrant a full time effort.

Clearly it is not a priority for Lewis' department. Which is troubling only in comparison to the stated priority of "reducing crime and providing a safe environment by targeting quality of life issues in our neighborhoods and business community through aggressive enforcement of the law". I am not against aggressive enforcement, but that needs to be balanced with a viable alternative to sending a 19 year-old nonviolent smalltime marijuana peddler to jail for four years, only to come out of prison with a felony conviction at the age of 23... It compounds an already complicated prison re-entry issue to which there are no clear cut answers or support services.

Posted by: anon | May 8, 2009 11:05 AM

Over the past 20 years, CT State spending on corrections +127%, CT State spending on higher education +21%

Where is the Republican outrage?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 8, 2009 8:31 PM

Barb I totally agree with you on that comment! This is not just some small issue. Kids futures being destroyed for being kids. Even looney is trying to change the laws on this not just because it will save the state money but it will prevent youth from having to wear a scalet letter for there lifes. And it is getting over whelming support.
http://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB-349

Even the president has said it is one of the most asked question he is getting at his web site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuqvcMDqMn8
I think this is a wonderful program kudos to those who got it going.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 8, 2009 8:35 PM

ps... Just a funny side note when looking at the bill in hartford's progress, notice that the JOINT committee was in favor of it

Posted by: Andrew Grant-Thomas | May 10, 2009 9:39 PM

You know what's really pathetic? For the City to do its damnedest to flush a 19 y.o. life down the drain for "previously selling $50 worth of marijuana." Is a kid who went through a drug counseling program and is trying to finish high school beyond redemption? Don't be stupid. But check him out after the 4 years in prison State Prosecutor Brian Leslie wants to drop on him. So then Raheem Vaughn will be in his mid-twenties, with no high school diploma (but with four years of prison "education" behind him), and a felony conviction that'll drag him down no matter how he wants his life to go.

Yeah, that'll turn out well - for him and for the community he'll return to. What's that saying about doing the same old stupid things and expecting a different result? Prosecutor Leslie? Asst. Chief Reichard? You've heard that one, right?

In the meantime, if Mr. Leslie wants to know exactly where and when to catch Yalies doing a whole lot more than $50 in coke, marijuana, and whatever else on a weekly basis, I'm sure I could find out in the space of two phone calls. But I'll guess that he already knows. But we won't see New Haven's finest busting down any Yale dorm doors anytime soon, will we?

No. Didn't think so.

Asst. Chief Reichard's suggestion that young people like Vaughn are too hardened to qualify for real help rather than prison would get a big, toothy grin from any number of my former peers at Hopkins Grammar School - where a lot of Yale profs send their kids -- and Yale who used and sold things a lot harsher than marijuana with impunity and are now doing quite well, thanks. But then, like Leslie, I suspect the Chief knows that too.

Posted by: Andrew Grant-Thomas | May 10, 2009 11:33 PM

One more thing.

It costs an average of $44k per year to incarcerate an inmate in Connecticut, from a high of $100k/year in Northern to a "low" of $29k/year in Willard/Cybulski (see http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0099.htm). That's $176k over the four years the prosecutor wants to lock Raheem Vaughn up and as much as $400k. That's how your tax dollars will be spent.

How about taking that money -- shoot, how about taking HALF of it, $88,000 -- and investing it in a productive future for Raheem Vaughn? I bet for that amount of cash you could give him the tutoring he may need not just to finish high school, but prep for college and STILL have some money left over for books, fees and tuition at a state school.

Now THERE'S a program worthy of the name, Restart.

Posted by: HPNC | May 11, 2009 8:31 AM

Too bad CT did not have all pieces in place before trying to do the High Point model which has worked very well here. High Pointer Against Violence

Posted by: Terrance V Jones | May 14, 2009 2:01 PM

Regarding Your Commentators: some people have time to respond to things in this paper, while neglecting their own pastoral responsibilities.

They really should take the time caring about their flock, rather than writing reponses in this paper that most people who comment here, do not have the political power to do anything beyond "flapping their lips"