Connect with us

Connecticut

Face the Facts: Discussing how clemency is granted in the US

Published

on

Face the Facts: Discussing how clemency is granted in the US


Earlier this week, a man convicted in the killing of an 8-year-old boy and his mother in Bridgeport in 1999 has been granted clemency by now former president Joe Biden.

Senator Richard Blumenthal was our state attorney general at the time. He was one of many lawmakers shocked by this pardon.

He spoke with NBC Connecticut’s Mike Hydeck about his take on the pardon.

Mike Hydeck: Senator, welcome back. Earlier this week, you talked about how you were attorney general back in 1999 when this case was tried. You said this case actually changed Connecticut laws. How?

Advertisement

Richard Blumenthal: This case changed Connecticut laws because the victims here, an 8-year-old boy and his mom, Karen Clarke, were potential witnesses in a very serious crime. They were murdered so that they could not testify in court, and as a result, Connecticut adopted a witness protection program named after BJ Brown and his mom, Karen Clarke. And I was shocked and appalled that clemency was accorded to the culprit in this case, who was convicted in state court of conspiracy to murder and then in federal court of federal drug crimes, and that’s why I am pushing again for reforms to the pardon system, which led to clemency to Adrian Peeler, the convicted murderer here.

Mike Hydeck: How do we go about changing the pardon power of the president so this doesn’t happen again? It’s clear that he had served time for the state charge and he was still in prison on the federal drug charge, but it seems like, is there a pardon board that overlooks these or does President Biden just get handed one and then he signs it? It seems as if somebody read past the headline, we would have figured this out.

Richard Blumenthal: That’s really the question of the moment, and a very important question. You know, the pardon power in our federal government is accorded absolutely without any checks and balances, to the president of the United States. It is a relic, in a sense, of the pardon power exercised by the monarchy in England, and the founders gave it to the president without any requirements for transparency or accountability. In the state of Connecticut, we have a Board of Pardons and Paroles, 10 people working full time with set criteria relating to the impact on the victim and the opinion of the prosecutors and the severity of the offense. There’s no such board at the federal level, and so it is completely within the discretion of the president whether to accord clemency, commutation of sentences, reprieve for fines. And that’s why I am proposing that we actually impose some guardrails on the president of the United States, requiring an explanation, at the very least, some explanation for why pardon has been accorded, and some notice to the prosecutors. For example, in the Peeler case, the Department of Justice had an opportunity for the victims, the Clarke family, to come forward and present their opinion, their views, on whether there ought to be clemency. So providing some guardrails at the federal level, as we do in Connecticut and other states do at the state level is really critical, and in the long run, I’m proposing a constitutional amendment that would curb or cut this absolute power of the president. It has to be a constitutional amendment because the pardon power is part of our federal Constitution. But I think the time has come for this absolute power on the part of the president of the United States to be eliminated.

Mike Hydeck: Senator, is there any way to revisit the Peeler case now that Biden is out of office? Or is that pretty much a done deal because of the power of the pardon?

Richard Blumenthal: We probably should look into why there was this pardon for Adrian Peeler. But we also should keep in mind that President Trump granted pardons to some 1,500 convicted or accused rioters who assaulted police officers, many of them injuring severely those police officers, and in some cases actually killing, causing their deaths. So the pardon power used to grant clemency to those rioters who cause those kinds of injuries and death is also part of the picture here, and we should move forward to restrict and cut and curb the presidential powers. And at the same time, perhaps look at why the pardon for Peeler was granted. But the answer to your question is, there’s probably nothing to do right now, actually, to reverse that decision, because it has already been made and there’s no review, which again, points the need for reform here.

Advertisement

Mike Hydeck: Senator Blumenthal, we have to leave it there. We’re looking forward to when that legislation is drafted. We’d like to have you back on when it is.



Source link

Connecticut

Connecticut agrees to settlement with Hyundai, Kia to stop vehicles from being stolen

Published

on

Connecticut agrees to settlement with Hyundai, Kia to stop vehicles from being stolen


CONNECTICUT (WTNH) — Connecticut officials and officials from 35 other states have agreed to a settlement with automakers Hyundai and Kia to come up with a plan to help prevent vehicles from being stolen. 

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D) and 35 other states call the settlement, which has been several years in the making, a matter of public safety. The issue concerns the number of Hyundai and Kia vehicles that have been reported stolen and crashes related to these thefts.

The settlement provides up to $4.5 million in restitution for customers whose cars had been stolen.

“This settlement points us back in the right direction to help address some of the underlining issues that have made it easier to steal vehicles,” Meriden Police Chief Roberto Rosado said.

Advertisement

Tong said that groups of young people known as “Kia Boys” were aware that Kia and Hyundai vehicles did not possess modern anti-theft technology, making those brands of vehicles more vulnerable to theft.

One such example is a 2023 incident in which a group of teens reportedly stole and crashed a Hyundai in Waterbury, resulting in the death of a 14-year-old girl. 

“Connecticut State Police have been saying for some time that they needed some assistance, that they needed help in reducing the opportunity for these vehicles to be stolen,” Connecticut Department of Emergency Services Commissioner Ronnell Higgins said.

Several states have attempted to get Hyundai and Kia to alter the way their vehicles are built in the United States, finally coming to an agreement with the two automakers to provide an anti-theft device to protect the vehicles. 

“At some point, they started offering excuses,” Tong said. “You can do just a software update, that will fix it. That didn’t work. We advocated for a recall, they refused. This settlement requires that, for all future vehicles sold in the United States, Hyundai and Kia will install, as part of their standard package, industry engine immobilizer anti-theft technology.”

Advertisement

The technology is linked to the key fob, which means that the car will not start if the smart key is not present.

Connecticut is requiring Kia and Hyundai to provide customers with a free zinc-reinforced engine cylinder protector for vehicles already on the road that are not equipped with the anti-theft technology.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

2 Powerball tickets sold in Connecticut won $50,000

Published

on

2 Powerball tickets sold in Connecticut won ,000


There were two $50,000 Powerball winning tickets sold in Connecticut for Monday’s drawing.

The winning numbers were 23-35-59-63-68 and the Powerball was 2.

The Powerplay was X4, but neither ticket had that option.

The tickets matched four white balls and the Powerball.

Advertisement

No information was available on where it was sold.

No one won the jackpot on Monday night, sending it soaring to $1.25 billion for Wednesday’s drawing.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Opinion: Flavored vapes and Connecticut’s youth: a call for action

Published

on

Opinion: Flavored vapes and Connecticut’s youth: a call for action


My generation grew up thinking we would be the ones to bring teen smoking to an end. But then came the cotton candy vapes.

They were, and still are, everywhere you look. Back in middle and high school, I remember friends had them in their backpacks and hoodie sleeves, they even used them in the school bathrooms.

This past summer, I witnessed firsthand the real impact it has had. My friends and I took a girls’ trip, and one day, we decided we wanted to blow up a pool floatie. Given that we didn’t have an air pump, the only option was to do it manually. One of my friends, who has vaped regularly for years, couldn’t get more than three breaths in before giving up. She began coughing and ran out of breath. It was funny for a second…until it wasn’t.

This was the moment that made me realize how this epidemic is hurting the people closest to us. 

Advertisement

When e-cigarettes first hit the market, companies claimed that they were safer than smoking real cigarettes and that they would help adults quit smoking, when in reality, they’ve only really done the opposite for young people. Vaping may look harmless because of the fun flavors, names, and colors on the packaging, but the reality of it is way darker. E-cigarette use can lead to cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders, and even long term damage to the airways that can make something as simple as inhaling a serious struggle. These devices push harmful chemicals deep into young people’s lungs, disrupting their bodies in ways they’re not even aware of until it’s too late. 

A Yale-led study found that one in four Connecticut high school students and one in 30 middle schoolers had already tried vaping. This may not seem like much at first glance, but the fact of the matter is that a vast majority of adolescents know at least one peer who vapes, at the very minimum. A large portion of the teens from the study preferred sweet and fruity flavors, and many students who had never smoked cigarettes before began experimenting with nicotine through vapes, which demonstrates that flavored e-cigarettes are a gateway, not a solution.

Kiara Salas

 The problem is not just about curiosity. The brain is not finished developing until about age 25. This time is critical in the development of areas like attention, memory, and decision making. The CDC mentions that nicotine exposure during these earlier years of development can impair brain chemistry, having outcomes that linger into adulthood.

Despite this, vape companies continue to sell what seems like nicotine candy to minors, disguised in bright packaging and flavors like “blue razz” or “mango blast.” When you think about it, it makes sense that as soon as companies began seeing a decline in sales, they had to figure out a way to create new products that were trendy, tasted good, and addictive. 



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending