Attacked Plea Deal Defended -- Entertainment, New Haven County,...

While Republicans and Democrats continued to spar Tuesday over how best to fight violent crime, the prosecutor whose office eight years ago locked up the ex-convict implicated in Connecticut's latest horrific ...

[Shoreliner]

The Democrats in the GA have repeatedly sided with convicted felons and their families by their unwillingness to get tough on crime in Connecticut.

A '3 strikes' law is just the beginning. The State needs to expand the use of the death in cases involving:
- Capital murder
- Serial rapists
- Major drug dealers

The GA's apparent unwillingness, led by Michael Lawlor and Andrew McDonald, to protect its constituents could eventually lead to increased vigilantism as citizens pursue measures to ensure their safety and that of their families.

[Allen M]

This is a good article by the Courant providing more answers and background to the plea deal circumstances in this case. I too was previously outraged about the prosecutor giving this plea deal, now I see its wrong to put this on him.

However, it also appears there wasn't really a case against Williams on the sexual assault charge. If this article's details accurately reflect the evidence, or lack of, that existed against him it raises other questions. For instance, would he have been convicted absent significant evidence had he had money and resources for decent attorneys? And what does that say about the innocent people who get wrongly accused and face 15-20 year sentences (or more) without the benefit of unlimited resources and quality legal representation?

Aside from all that....I'm glad the Courant pointed out that once again our Governor refuses to even sit down and have a meeting to discuss solutions with the legislative leadership. Wouldn't working together to at least discuss the best ways to legislatively try to prevent these MURDERS of our citizens be a necessary step? How could our Governor refuse to even sit down with top leadership and talk about finding ways to better protect us?

Its irresponsible for her to refuse to even meet. And instead she carries on about the 3 strikes bill which is totally irrelevant to this case, has no impact on it and would not have applied in this situation.

Shame on Governor Rell. Why is it too much to ask her to TALK to legislative leadership about finding solutions to prevent such heinous crimes?

[Allen M]

Shoreliner wrote:

The Democrats in the GA have repeatedly sided with convicted felons and their families by their unwillingness to get tough on crime in Connecticut.
A '3 strikes' law is just the beginning. The State needs to expand the use of the death in cases involving:
- Capital murder
- Serial rapists
- Major drug dealers
The GA's apparent unwillingness, led by Michael Lawlor and Andrew McDonald, to protect its constituents could eventually lead to increased vigilantism as citizens pursue measures to ensure their safety and that of their families.

The 3 strikes bill wouldn't have prevented this murder and wouldn't have applied to this convict.

We already have law on the book, strengthened for March 1st of this year, which allows for up to life sentences if someone is convicted 3 times. We already have this law. Prosecutors choose not to use it, as they've said they don't intend to use the 3 strike law much either.

They use it as leverage to compel plea deals for longer sentences than they might otherwise get. So frankly, the 3 strikes bill is really a non-issue as it wouldn't do anything differently than what's already on the books and being practiced.

[sick of it]

HOW ABOUT 1 STRIKE FOR VIOLENT CRIMES,NO SECOND CHANCES ZERO TOLERANCE.THESE HOME INVASION STORIES MAKE ME SICK

[Gail]

sick of it wrote:

HOW ABOUT 1 STRIKE FOR VIOLENT CRIMES,NO SECOND CHANCES ZERO TOLERANCE.THESE HOME INVASION STORIES MAKE ME SICK

I agree 100%!

[Allen M]

sick of it wrote:

HOW ABOUT 1 STRIKE FOR VIOLENT CRIMES,NO SECOND CHANCES ZERO TOLERANCE.THESE HOME INVASION STORIES MAKE ME SICK

Depending on the severity of the crime and the circumstances we already have 1 strike law, of course.

The problem comes in when the 1st strike, or 2nd strike are lesser charges. If our system should be equal punishment under the law, but circumstances of each crime need to be factored in, how do you give one person a 25 year sentence for say robbery and another person a 2 year sentence for the same offense? And how do you know which one will go on to further crimes escalating in severity and which one won't?

[Milt Friedman]

Allen M. is obviously lobbying for more money for the public defender's office.

We need to move beyinf three strikes since the liberals say it's not going to be tough enough.

Anyone who sexually assaults a child should be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole

[shab CT]

sick of it wrote:

HOW ABOUT 1 STRIKE FOR VIOLENT CRIMES,NO SECOND CHANCES ZERO TOLERANCE.THESE HOME INVASION STORIES MAKE ME SICK

I fully agree.. I get so disgusted when I hear of this crime. I get really upset. We need to use the death penalty a whole lot more than we do.. Does it look like he was reformed? or others like him .. and many more.. they are not going to comform so lets find another solution before anymore women and young kids have to fall prey to them

[local]

Lawlor: "Instead, he said, they'll tell her they need things that are "going to cost some serious money, and if she's true to her word she'll … be willing to spend [it] to make the system work."

Lawlor is absolutely correct here. IF Rell is serious about enhancing the criminal justice system, then she needs to propose spending some big cash on it.
We cannot have a 3 strikes law on the books and house these convicts in motels. More prisons need to be built.
Secondly, the criminal court system needs to be beefed up to handle the load. More judges, court support personnel, and prosecutors. Again, there will be a hefty price tag attached to all this.
Are we, the CT Taxpayer, ready to bite the bullet on this?
This is about money, not plea bargaining.

[Has Being]

Can't we all get along and raise chicken.

[Allen M]

local wrote:

Lawlor: "Instead, he said, they'll tell her they need things that are "going to cost some serious money, and if she's true to her word she'll … be willing to spend [it] to make the system work."
Lawlor is absolutely correct here. IF Rell is serious about enhancing the criminal justice system, then she needs to propose spending some big cash on it.
We cannot have a 3 strikes law on the books and house these convicts in motels. More prisons need to be built.
Secondly, the criminal court system needs to be beefed up to handle the load. More judges, court support personnel, and prosecutors. Again, there will be a hefty price tag attached to all this.
Are we, the CT Taxpayer, ready to bite the bullet on this?
This is about money, not plea bargaining.

Bingo. Rell doesn't want to build prisons. She doesn't want to add prosecutors, judges, court staff, prison guards or pay for the services that work in reducing the recidivism rate.

She wants to issue PR releases and make reactionary statements about being tough on crime and throwing blame around. Eventually the dust will settle and she'll have to sit down and agree to a meeting and face the real challenges head on. Is she willing to do right by our state and fund the services, staff, and programs that are needed in order to have an effective criminal justice system that is fair & impartial while also improving our overall safety? I think not.

[Allen M]

Milt Friedman wrote:

Allen M. is obviously lobbying for more money for the public defender's office.
We need to move beyinf three strikes since the liberals say it's not going to be tough enough.
Anyone who sexually assaults a child should be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole

Not even close. I think the public defenders office should be abolished and high priced attorneys should be available for all.

I agree that anyone guilty and convicted of sexual assault of a child should be put away for a very, very long time. But our prisons are currently over crowded with low-level non-violent offenders. Something has to give, and the answer isn't the 3 strikes bill. Even Jodi knows that.

[Allen M]

Rudy wrote:

Lawlor, MacDonald, WIlliams, Amann... all of these idiots need to get THROWN OUT of the Legislature. NOW. They have absolutely no balls, they are tax-and-spend, bleeding heart liberals, and they just do not give a damn about anything that the mainstream voters and taxpayers of this State want.

Except they are in line with the voters & taxpayers. Only 35% of voters in CT. support the 3 strikes bill (according to Q-polls and other non-biased polls), so its Rell and the republicans who are out of whack with their constituency.

I agree with the rest of your post. Rell isn't offering any real solutions that would reduce crime. She's offering press releases and reactionary tough-sounding but fluffy statements without.

[Rudy]

local wrote:

Lawlor: "Instead, he said, they'll tell her they need things that are "going to cost some serious money, and if she's true to her word she'll … be willing to spend [it] to make the system work."
Lawlor is absolutely correct here. IF Rell is serious about enhancing the criminal justice system, then she needs to propose spending some big cash on it.
We cannot have a 3 strikes law on the books and house these convicts in motels. More prisons need to be built.
Secondly, the criminal court system needs to be beefed up to handle the load. More judges, court support personnel, and prosecutors. Again, there will be a hefty price tag attached to all this.
Are we, the CT Taxpayer, ready to bite the bullet on this?
This is about money, not plea bargaining.

You are absolutely correct - more money for judges, prosecutors and beef up the judicial system. As to the corrections system, however, there is probably some "fat" that is currently being spent that could be done away with - like some of the comforts that inmates have - stuff that they don't even have when they are not in prison. Prison is supposed to be punishment, not a better way of life.

As to where the money comes from, that is the debateable issue... the Dems will no doubt scream that there is a need for more taxes to pay for this. Logic, however, would suggest that maybe we need to cut back somewhat on all of the Democrat sponsored social giveaway programs in order to have funding for things that really can make a difference for ALL voters and taxpayers.

We need to stop pandering to the special interests and those that won't get off their butt to get a job, and start paying attention to those who are footing the bill.

[Linda]

Rell sounds like H. Clinton - talks big, promises much, is elected, and does little! She needs to pay attention to horrific crimes in her state, not the media and cameras!

[DgD]

We the people should be able to recover monetarily, from the politicians, judges, prosecutors and anyone else who plea deals with these animals, maybe if we were able to sue the pants off them for emotional stress,pain and suffering, etc,etc, from losing a loved one by one of these parasites, maybe they would stay locked up where they belong......

[Interesting]

Although this guy is clearly a monster and deserves the death penalty.. I'm a little disturbed that he did jail time for a case with no evidence.. That could have been any one of us... He deserved it, I'm sure, but what if it was an innocent man?? Whew.. I don't understand our system..

[all for one]

Linda wrote:

Rell sounds like H. Clinton - talks big, promises much, is elected, and does little! She needs to pay attention to horrific crimes in her state, not the media and cameras!

YES,YES,YES.

[Allen M]

Interesting wrote:

Although this guy is clearly a monster and deserves the death penalty.. I'm a little disturbed that he did jail time for a case with no evidence.. That could have been any one of us... He deserved it, I'm sure, but what if it was an innocent man?? Whew.. I don't understand our system..

Exactly, I share the same concerns. Anyone of us could be locked up for 8 years on no evidence? That's another problem with the plea deal system, to an innocent person without the resources to fight the charge taking the plea and doing the time might be seem like the only real option when the alternative is doing double the time if convicted.

[not surprised]

Interesting wrote:

Although this guy is clearly a monster and deserves the death penalty.. I'm a little disturbed that he did jail time for a case with no evidence.. That could have been any one of us... He deserved it, I'm sure, but what if it was an innocent man?? Whew.. I don't understand our system..

Not surprised at all. All it takes to be convicted of a crime is a prosecutor, a "tough" judge, and a connected "victim" helps, too. Innocent people accept pleas because a jury trial is an unknown -- to say nothing of the money involved. We have no justice system -- but a great "Good Old Boys Club". This guy appears to be guilty of this crime, the previous one is iffy. You are right, it could happen to anyone -- and does!