Lets just say that if the results of the election were any indication, then the law received a big fat thumbs down.
Was Tuesday’s election also a referendum on a true “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” law?
If it was, the law isn’t as popular as some might think. A majority of the 58 General Assembly candidates who signed a petition supporting a three-strikes law lost on Tuesday. Here’s how it broke down:
In the Senate, 8 of 15 lost their races, while 2 of the 7 winners were uncontested.
In the House, 29 of 43 candidates lost, while just 14 won.
Between the two chambers, about 64 percent of the candidates supporting three strikes lost. But it remains to be seen whether those results are definitive with respect to public support for the law.
“It shows you that issue was a campaign issue, rather than a valid policy issue,” Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said Wednesday.
Although several Republicans, including Mick McLachlan, used the three strikes coalition for political purposes, which included the mayor's chief of staff making a spectacle in from of Danbury City Hall, as well as including his stance on his mail droppings, now Republicans are back-tracking and claiming that it was never a campaing issue.
Sen. Sam Caligiuri, R-Waterbury, who also is chairman of the Three Strikes Now Coalition, says he respectfully disagrees with Looney’s assessment.
“It was never our intention to influence the outcome of races,” Caligiuri said Wednesday. “We used the campaign season to talk about the issue.”
It's amazing that the coalition wasn't called into question for their political activity during the campaign season since it's a 501-3(c) group which purposely injected themselves during the height of the campaign season and politicians (mainly Republicans) used for political purposes.
The Coalition is a nonpartisan, not for profit grass roots organization dedicated to having a "three strikes and you're out" law enacted in Connecticut
But that's for another day...
Was the election a referendum on the law=? Maybe, maybe not. The three strikes law was extremely unpopular on most area of the state with most Republicans who signed on to the "pledge" losing badly, it seems remote that the proposed law will receive any traction.
Also, what really get lost in the translation is what the compromise law does.
Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, has said that when the General Assembly reconvenes in January it will evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation it passed last January, largely in response to the Petit murders. McDonald said the legislation passed unanimously by the General Assembly allows judges to double and triple the sentences of career offenders. He said career offenders can have their sentences enhanced up to and including life in prison under the new legislation.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
