In the early hours of this morning, the Connecticut legislature passed a watered-down but still dangerous change to the existing “three strikes” criminal sentencing statute. The change requires that judges double or triple the mandatory minimum sentence for a person classified as a persistent dangerous felony offender. The amendment also requires that if a prosecutor does not choose to seek harsher sentencing in a case involving someone who qualifies as a persistent violent felony offender, the prosecutor must state on the record his or her reason for not doing so. The bill as passed also provides sums that can only be described as pocket change for the Public Defender’s office and for re-entry services for previously incarcerated people.

Thanks to the battle waged by the Clean Slate Committee and its allies, as well as the stalwart opposition of a few principled legislators, this new law is a far cry from the kind of three strikes that Governor Rell demanded. The fact remains, however, that the process that permitted this morning’s amendments to pass speaks volumes about the version of “democracy” that the existing political system provides.

Recently there has begun to be a discussion about the fact that Connecticut is a state that suffers from a profound racial disparity in criminal convictions and imprisonment rates. It’s also an undisputed and common sense fact that Connecticut is also a state that suffers from a profound geographic and racial disparity in the distribution of wealth, in employment opportunities, in access to decent schools, and in access to health care. In short, we are a state polarized by race and class: people of color are disproportionately poor, underemployed or unemployed, imprisoned or on parole or probation, and concentrated in isolated urban neighborhoods.

In this context, any plan for significant changes to the criminal justice system would logically demand a discussion about the impact of such changes on people of color versus the impact on whites. Any such plan would logically require input from the communities who suffer the highest rates of conviction and imprisonment to assess the root causes of these disparities and to determine whether the changes under consideration would add to those disparities or diminish them. Any such plan would consider what is best for all of Connecticut not merely the most privileged elements.

And when this public discussion had taken place, legislators would act with a clear agenda, making their decisions under the eyes of the people who elected them.

What we have just seen is the antithesis of democracy. Governor Rell and the Republican Party demanding tough-on-crime laws with no rhyme or reason to them, the Democratic Party leadership trying to straddle the political fence by talking tough and watering down Rell’s proposals. Zero substantive discussion of either the pervasive racism that has been exposed in the criminal justice system or the root causes of urban crime and violence. And to top it all off, the passing of substantive changes to Connecticut criminal law in the form of late-night and last-minute amendments in order for politicians to say that they “did something” before the legislative session ends.

That is “their democracy.” The democracy of a culture of racism and privilege upheld and perpetuated by an economic system in which a few have vast wealth and the many barely survive. It’s the only kind of democracy that we can hope to have in a profit-driven capitalist society that depends for its very existence on the division of society into haves and have-nots.

And what is the alternative? is it some kind of utopian pie in the sky or never-never land where “we all just get along”?

No, to consider the alternatives and see what is possible just look at one of the proposals that has been articulated and demanded by the Clean Slate Committee ever since Governor Rell’s disastrous parole ban last year. Clean Slate has argued for, among other things, the convening by the governor of a special commission to discuss the kinds of social changes that are needed to actually reduce crime, enhance the ability of formerly incarcerated people to return to their communities and not re-offend, stabilize and treat more people at risk of drug addictions and serious mental health problems, and strengthen families.

Who would serve on this commission and why would it be any different from the endless parade of special committees and taskforces and expert studies? The commission proposed by Clean Slate would be made up primarily of previously incarcerated people who have successfully made the transition back into the community without re-offending. It would include the families of people who are presently in jail. It would include people who are recovering substance abusers and rehabilitated violent offenders. It would include the people who make up the social support network for people returning from prisons to communities: family, clery, community leaders, social service providers.

In other words, the commission that Clean Slate proposes is one that would be made up of people who understand the problem from the inside — from the way that it affects themselves, their family members, and their communities.

This has to be the starting point for real democracy: creating a context in which voices are heard not because they have money or political careers or media access but because they are the ones who actually understand the problem based on their real life experience.

The system as it exists cannot abide that kind of true democracy. As this morning’s legislative report shows, exposing the sham of democracy that we have and laying the foundations for true democracy is going to require a long and hard struggle.

Share This