Don't look now, but Ed Rendell is turning into the law-and-order governor in 2009.
Did he see that new Clint Eastwood movie over the holidays?
Stung by several high-profile acts of violence by parolees during his tenure, Rendell is calling on the state Legislature to make it tougher to parole violent offenders.
"In 2008, four Pennsylvanians were brutally murdered by five men who had served state time for violent crimes and were out on parole," Rendell said in a press release. "These murders cry out for changes in how we sentence and supervise repeat violent offenders, so today, I am asking the General Assembly to end parole for repeat violent offenders. These murders were clear indications that repeat violent offenders must serve more time in prison and that repeated violent acts must be met with even tougher consequences."
It's about time Rendell took a serious look at crime in Pennsylvania, something he's ignored during his six years in office.
Rendell wants legislation to either eliminate or limit parole for certain classes of offenders. And guess what? He will probably get it.
While he's in the last two years of his lame-duck second term, Rendell should be able to attract enough Republicans votes to get tougher laws on the books on parole for violent offenders.
Read the governor's full press release at the link below:
PA Gov. Rendell to Legislature: End Paroles for Repeat Violent Offenders to Keep Communities Safe
2 comments:
Rendell wants to put repeat violent actors (offenders), in jail? Good grief! Does he realize that he may lose those votes?
"The repeat violent offender designation would apply to anyone who was convicted as an adult or juvenile of committing one or more violent crimes with a deadly weapon, or has at least been convicted of at least one violent crime and is convicted of a weapons offense."
Tony, there is a saying in the legal biz: "Hard cases make bad law."
There is already a classification under the sentencing guidelines (and a definition) called "REVOC" (Repeat Violent Offender) with its guidelines. If Ed wants to adjust that, fine. But passing a re-definition of it in the current climate is asking for trouble. And the definition being proposed is not the current definition (the current definition escapes me at the moment).
This smacks of more grandstanding by Ed, who once again demonstrates leadership by finding a parade already heading in one direction, and runs, and gets in front up. Much like Mike O's "leaderhip."
Post a Comment