VT- Prosecutors oppose long mandatory sentences

Mandatory sentences are nothing more than vindictive -sounds good- methods without any proof that they serve to make tghe public more safe. Also they are a slap in the face of judges, as they say to them, you are not capable of properly sentencing offenders. Finally, such sentencing treats all offenders ALIKE when multiple criminal codes, under which offenders are charged, say they are different.

8-9-2008 Vermont:

Better policing, DNA testing more effective, Senate told

MONTPELIER — The state's prosecutors told a Senate panel Friday there are more effective changes in state law to deal with sex offenders than instituting long mandatory minimum jail terms.

Those comments came during the second day of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the state's sex offender laws, which were launched in the wake of the murder of 12-year-old Brooke Bennett of Braintree earlier this summer.

Taking an alternative position from prosecutors was Stacie Rumenap, head of a national organization that has been advocating for 25-year mandatory minimum sentences for sex offenders.

"The only way you can keep (sex offenders) away from children is by putting them behind bars for 25 years to life," she told committee members meeting at the Statehouse.

But Vermont's prosecutors have warned that so-called Jessica's Laws — lengthy mandatory minimum prison terms — could in fact lead to fewer offenders in prison. That's because such a statute could result in more trials on sometimes shaky evidence and more acquittals — and more trauma for victims.

"It is understandable that people are outraged," said Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand. "It is also easy."

But, he said. "Policymakers must lead, not simply fan the flames of vengeance."

The single most important thing is for the state's special sex crime investigation units — expanded to every county in recent years — to be fully staffed, Sand said.

Those specialized units have training in dealing with both victims and suspects, agreed Attorney General William Sorrell.

In some urban areas with many municipal police departments, such as Chittenden County, that means local police investigators. In more rural parts of the state, that will mean relying on investigators with the Vermont State Police, he said.

"It is really going to take a top-down commitment that this is a priority from the governor on down," Sorrell said.

In an interview Thursday, state Commissioner of Public Safety Thomas Tremblay said the expansion of the special investigation units as authorized by the Legislature are among his department's top priorities. He noted, however, that the state police need to fill 21 vacancies before embarking in earnest on the initiative.

The state police, he said, are undergoing an internal study that will "recalibrate" departmental priorities.

"It is my hope that the study will help us redirect resources in a way that prioritizes these units," he said.

Vermont State Police, in conjunction with municipal departments, already has two units dealing specifically with sex crimes — the Chittenden Unit for Special Investigations and the Northwest Unit for Special Investigations.

Tremblay said those units, which took about eight years to develop, will serve as the model for seven additional units around the state.

"One of the things that needs to occur is we need to have specially assigned, specially trained investigators that can provide this new service," Tremblay said. "I don't have a specific time frame or deadline for that."

Tremblay said that, even in lieu of the specialized units, state police stand ready to investigate all crimes against children.

"At no time has any case involving a child been denied the resources of officers to investigate these very serious crimes," Tremblay said. "The Bennett case is one example of what kind of resources we will bring to bear on these cases."

Prosecutors said eliminating the right of defense lawyers in Vermont to automatically depose victims would help victims avoid having to repeatedly describe what happened to them. Only one other state grants defendants that as a matter of right, Sorrell said.

DNA should also be collected from felony suspects routinely, the prosecutors said.

Some of those changes are also problematic, however, Vermont Defender General Matthew Valerio said. The judicial system is set up to separate innocent people accused of crimes from the guilty and some of the proposed changes would weaken that system, Valerio said before testifying.

"It inhibits the ability of our system to determine who is innocent and who is guilty," he said.

And eliminating the right to depose victims means defense lawyers will end up going through the same process in the courtroom, he added.

In addition, he said, based on a recent split Vermont Supreme Court decision allowing the collection of DNA from nonviolent felons, it is probably unconstitutional in Vermont to collect such evidence from suspects who have not been convicted, Valerio said.

"We are ready to litigate that if it becomes an issue," he said.

Rumenap told lawmakers the long-term mandatory minimums are still needed, despite prosecutor's objections.

"That is their job," she said. "They have to make their best case and convict the person."

There is little data yet on the impact of Florida's three-year-old 25-year-mandatory minimum for such first-time offenses, Rumenap said.

Members of the Senate committee noted, however, that while Vermont is getting a lot of national criticism of its sex offense laws, this state's rates of violent crime are lower than Florida's.

"If you look at our rate of violent crime compared to Florida, I guess our laws work better than theirs," said Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington.

Sand said he has searched and not found a single study that shows mandatory minimums work.

"I don't support mandatory minimums. I think they are bad for the criminal justice system," Sand said. "I can jettison my philosophy if someone can show me mandatory minimums improve public safety."

And the prosecutors argued against a state death penalty for sex offenders — perhaps a moot point, as the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled such laws unconstitutional.

The reason prosecutors oppose them is simple, Chittenden County State's Attorney T.J. Donovan said.

"People are not infallible," he said. ..News Source.. by Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau ; Staff Writer Peter Hirschfeld contributed to this story.