|
Allen M
|
Shoreliner wrote: <quoted text>
You are simply another apologist for being soft on crime..trying to rationalize why 3 strikes wouldn't 'work' in this case.
The fact of the matter is this, Connecticut judges need all available legal weapons in order to keep the streets safe. So you want an identical law to what's already there? Judges already have the option of sentencing up to life for repeat violent offenders. I'm not an apologist at all, nor am I soft on crime. I just prefer to see us actually pass a bill that would have an impact and make a difference rather than a whole public campaign based on misinformation. I don't think its acceptable to allow the public to be fooled on this one by the "3 strikes law" and Governor's statements. We need real change - meaning an additional tool to give to judges and prosecutors, not the same thing under a different name. Do you practice law? Are you in the criminal justice field? Do you attend regular legislative hearings on the relevant bills? And monitor and speak with legislators and committees about the need to target legislation in this area so as to effectively implement CHANGE rather than status quo? If not, I don't know how you're in a position to judge others on this topic.
|
|
FUDD
|
BECAUSE OF THE BRUTALITY THIS THUG DID TO THESE WOMEN .....I HAVE A SOLUTION..........ITS CALLED THE ELECTRIC CHAIR ! CRANK IT UP.....SNAP ....CRACKLE.....POP !!!! HE IS NOT A HUMAN BEING..........HE IS SUB HUMAN PARASITE....THE WOMEN WHOSE LIVES WERE DESTRYED BY THIS PARASITE WILL NEVER BE THE SAME..........I GRIEVE FOR THE VICTIMS..........MAY THIS PARASITE BURN IN HELL..........
|
|
Shoreliner
|
Allen M wrote: <quoted text>
So you want an identical law to what's already there? Judges already have the option of sentencing up to life for repeat violent offenders.
I'm not an apologist at all, nor am I soft on crime. I just prefer to see us actually pass a bill that would have an impact and make a difference rather than a whole public campaign based on misinformation. I don't think its acceptable to allow the public to be fooled on this one by the "3 strikes law" and Governor's statements. We need real change - meaning an additional tool to give to judges and prosecutors, not the same thing under a different name.
Do you practice law? Are you in the criminal justice field? Do you attend regular legislative hearings on the relevant bills? And monitor and speak with legislators and committees about the need to target legislation in this area so as to effectively implement CHANGE rather than status quo?
If not, I don't know how you're in a position to judge others on this topic. Another poster pegged you earlier as a lobbyest. It seems like he/she was onto something. Unlike you, I am not some pencil pusher trying to reach a consensus. If it was up to me, Connecticut, not Texas, would lead the country in capital punishment sentences. For individuals convicted of: - Capital murder - Serial rape - Large-scale drug dealing For these individuals, I have zero compassion. These individuals can not be rehabilitated and contribute to society. Therefore, why should society be forced to finance their lives behind bars? If it was up to me, there would be no violent criminals incarcerated with sentences longer than 7 years. We, as a society, need to decide whether a first-time offender can be rehabilitated or not. If not, you know the outcome. Instead of building more jails, we need to be reducing them. If Connecticut is tough on crime (my definition), violent crime will decrease.
|
|
just me
|
IF RELL HAD A HALF OF A BRAIN INSTEAD OF CHANGEING THE LAWS FOR HER PETIT FRIENDS AND MAKING HOME INVASIONS LAWS TUFFER.SHE SHOULD BE MAKING LAWS TUFFER THAT INVOLVE CHILDREN.THIS JERK RAPED A 5 YEAR OLD CHILD AND ONLY GOT 8 YEARS.
|
|
I Am A Bar Card
|
"But a review of the 1998 sexual assault prosecution by Connelly's office shows a plea bargain resulted in a conviction in a case involving little physical evidence, no independent witnesses and a 5-year old victim who a psychiatric expert said could not provide a coherent account of what happened to her."
No probable cause? Sounds like the only criminal here is Mr. Connelly.
What kind of prosecutor would even allow a plea deal when there is no case? What a snake.
|
|
Gary
|
I Am A Bar Card wrote: "But a review of the 1998 sexual assault prosecution by Connelly's office shows a plea bargain resulted in a conviction in a case involving little physical evidence, no independent witnesses and a 5-year old victim who a psychiatric expert said could not provide a coherent account of what happened to her."
No probable cause? Sounds like the only criminal here is Mr. Connelly.
What kind of prosecutor would even allow a plea deal when there is no case? What a snake. Hey bozo...the better question is what kind of idiot would take a plea bargain if the state had no evidence and no chance to convict. A guilty idiot, that's who. Dimwit.
|
|
I Am A Bar Card
|
Gary wrote: <quoted text>
Hey bozo...the better question is what kind of idiot would take a plea bargain if the state had no evidence and no chance to convict.
A guilty idiot, that's who.
Dimwit. Unless you've worked in the system, you have no idea what you are talking about. Innocent people take plea deals when the courts lie to them. Look at the original story before making such comments.
|
|
Gary
|
I Am A Bar Card wrote: <quoted text>
Unless you've worked in the system, you have no idea what you are talking about. Innocent people take plea deals when the courts lie to them. Look at the original story before making such comments. Hey Einstein....that's why the guy has something called a "lawyer". Of course you probably feel the public defender's office is in on some kind of "conspiracy". The slimeball was guilty which is why he took the plea bargain. He didn't want to risk going to jail for 25 years or more. But please, be as delusional as you want. The rest of us just laugh at you.
|
|
|
|
I Am A Bar Card
|
Gary wrote: <quoted text>
Hey Einstein....that's why the guy has something called a "lawyer".
Of course you probably feel the public defender's office is in on some kind of "conspiracy".
The slimeball was guilty which is why he took the plea bargain. He didn't want to risk going to jail for 25 years or more.
But please, be as delusional as you want. The rest of us just laugh at you. I work in the system. Look at my name. You aren't that smart, are you? Where did you obtain your law degree? Obviously you cannot even comprehend what I am saying. You need to stop watching the many cop programs on TV. They are not reality.
|
|
Imagine no religion
|
Shoreliner wrote: <quoted text>
You are simply another apologist for being soft on crime..trying to rationalize why 3 strikes wouldn't 'work' in this case.
The fact of the matter is this, Connecticut judges need all available legal weapons in order to keep the streets safe. But the point of the post, which you have left unrefuted, is that the particular weapon advocated for, the three strikes rule, would not have made the streets safe from this guy. So, actually, the poster is correct that the three strikes rule would not have "worked" in this case. One victim would still be dead, the other injured. But what if, instead of dumping him in a shelter, Williams had been given a job and a decent place to live, with some assistance in reintegrating himself into society? That, I think, would have made the streets safer from Mr. Williams than any 3 strikes rule.
|
|
Kenneth Cruz
|
As a former police chief and president of the Connecticut Police Chief's Association I am very familiar the the record of John Connelly as a sState's Attorney. If one would just examine his record one would find that he has the highest record of people now sitting on death row in the state.
He is know not only by law enforcement but also by defense attorneys as a very tough prosecutor. The staement by this politician is just typical retoric/bloviating. Again these type of statements just reinforce the old saying that politicians will say anything to advance their standing regardless what the facts say.
|
|
Dr Seuss
|
I Am A Bar Card wrote: <quoted text>
I work in the system. Look at my name. You aren't that smart, are you?
Where did you obtain your law degree? Obviously you cannot even comprehend what I am saying.
You need to stop watching the many cop programs on TV. They are not reality. Then why didn't you answer Gary's very legitimate question instead of avoiding it and resorting to name-calling? Not very "lawyerly". And as to the significance of your screen name, yes, I'm really Dr Seuss.
|
|
Mac
|
Kenneth Cruz wrote: As a former police chief and president of the Connecticut Police Chief's Association I am very familiar the the record of John Connelly as a sState's Attorney. If one would just examine his record one would find that he has the highest record of people now sitting on death row in the state.
He is know not only by law enforcement but also by defense attorneys as a very tough prosecutor. The staement by this politician is just typical retoric/bloviating. Again these type of statements just reinforce the old saying that politicians will say anything to advance their standing regardless what the facts say. Very well said. There is nothing to be added.
|
Judge it!
66°F
Most Popular
