House Speaker Jim Amann, D-Milford, should not be allowed to speak without a Sherpa guide. Monday on the Dan Lovallo Show on WDRC, Amann tried to explain how he has come full circle on the  proposed ”Three Strikes” amendment that he and his fellow Democrats opposed last week as part of the Governor’s comprehensive criminal justice reform.

Speaker Amann, who is going to announce his plans to run for Governor on Thursday in Milford, was made to eat his own words when Lovallo played back an interview he had with Brad Davis in a previous interview on the subject (see text below). Amann then compared our criminal justice system to Communist China and much more and you well see, dear readers:

Here is the entire transcript, verbatim: 

DAN LOVALLO, host:

Jim Amann is the speaker of the House of the

Representatives in the Connecticut General Assembly. And

we welcome him to the program this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, good afternoon.

Representative JAMES AMANN (Connecticut Speaker of the

House): Dan, nice to be with you again.

LOVALLO: Mr. Speaker, it’s always a pleasure having you on

the program. And this time, to be fair, your appearance on

here I guess a couple of weeks ago, and on the Brad Davis

program also on “The Talk of Connecticut,” has engendered

some conversation, with people upset that they heard you

say on both programs that you would vote for “Three Strikes

and You’re Out,” and when the amendment came before the

House last Tuesday, you voted against it.

So I’m going to ask you to explain why.

Rep. AMANN: I have nothing to explain, Dan. First of all,

you need to go back and listen to the tape.

I also mentioned at that time that there were some issues

about the 30-year review and the way that we looked at the

30-year review–one of the things that I was concerned that

you would actually serve less time than the bill we have.

As the speaker of the house, I can’t be supporting

amendments that, (a), don’t work and need to–I’ll tell you

that the governor–and I’ve told the governor

this–although I do support the concept.

But let’s be clear, Dan. I was the original sponsor of the

bill back in 1994. I don’t think I need people to explain

to me how the bill works.

We’ve only had 30 people tried underneath that bill since

1994. The governor–pretty the so-called “Three Strikes”

was flawed. I had that conversation with her. She didn’t

have the support of her own task force.

And if you think that Chief Flaherty or Bob Farr or I think

Mary Gavin that runs the courthouse–these people I know

personally–

LOVALLO: Mr. Speaker–

Rep. AMANN: Dan, let me just–they did not support bill.

They did not suggest to have a “three strikes.” And they

believe that the bill that we did–including the

governor–was a good bill until, unfortunately, the

governor wanted to appease people on something that just

doesn’t work the way she laid out.

LOVALLO: Can we play your comment on the Brad David (sic)

program? And then you–

Rep. AMANN: As long as it’s entirely, I would like to,

yes.

LOVALLO: Well, I’ve got a minute and nine seconds here. I

guess you were on for longer than that. But let’s play it.

Then you can comment.

(Excerpt from “The Brad Davis Show”)

Rep. AMANN: It’s a good bill. And, yeah, I don’t have any

problem with it. There was one little concern we had on

the governor’s one portion there. We just want to make

sure that her intent is right. And she wants to have a

30-year review on the “Three Strikes” part that she’s

doing.

Mr. BRAD DAVIS (Host, “The Brad Davis Show”): You don’t

object to that, do you?

Rep. AMANN: No, I do not.

DAVIS: Good.

Rep. AMANN: The only thing–no, I don’t. However, the

governor and I had a very, very brief conversation.

The way it’s written right now it may seem unintentional

that an individual–because of that 30-year review–may get

less time served than a persistent offender. I just

brought that to the attention of the governor. Certainly

that’s not her intent.

We want to make sure that whatever the intent of the

governor is going to be exactly, you want this individual

to serve a long period of time, so the language can be

changed.

That was the only little piece that we read that would need

to be fixed. Beyond that, no, I’m very comfortable.

Mr. DAVIS: So then the speaker of the House–the speaker

of the House–is on–has got it together. Evidently

there’s a problem with some of the senators, but I hope

this gets worked out, Jim, because this is vital.

(End excerpt)

LOVALLO: All right.

Rep. AMANN: That’s exactly what I said. That piece that

we talked about, the one little thing. If you put them

side by side, unfortunately–and then you don’t need to

take my advice–talk to the prosecutors.

The prosecutors will tell you that in a real courtroom, the

way that it’s written right now, a person will actually do

less time under a 30-year review and get the chance to get

out than over the one that we passed. I still told the

governor that if we want to continue to try to improve the

language, she knows I support it.

But there’s a flaw in that language that’s never corrected.

I can’t speak for the senators; I can only speak for

myself. I was again, the original sponsor of the original

bill, as well as the stalking bill and the carjacking bill

and Megan’s bill.

Those are my bills that I’m proud of over my career. But

when there’s a flaw, there’s a flaw.

LOVALLO: But–

Rep. AMANN: I’m not going to pass a bill if it’s flawed.

We’ve already made those mistakes, including the original

bill that we did back in ‘94.

LOVALLO: Now the Republicans claim that in that amendment

that night they corrected the flaw. They said–

Rep. AMANN: Well, they’re incorrect.

LOVALLO: Well–

Rep. AMANN: They’ve been saying a lot of stuff that’s not

right. But they’re incorrect. They never corrected it.

LOVALLO: Well, what are we to make of this amendment

excerpt which reads, “after such person has served at least

30 years of the sentence, or the earliest date such person

is otherwise eligible for release under any other provision

of the general statutes, whichever is later.” What are we

to make of that?

Rep. AMANN: Again, it doesn’t correct the problem. The

problem is you need flexibility and you need a workable

“Three Strikes.” Any prosecutor–I don’t think any

prosecutors are lightweight in this state–they’ll tell you

it’s flawed. In fact many of them think the bill–the full

bill we did had some problems with it.

So, again, I’m–I just want to make it quite clear that

“Three Strikes” had nothing to do with this incident in the

first place. It had to do with a lack of communication.

But the bottom line is I’ve always supported “Three

Strikes.” I was the original co-sponsor in ‘94. But I’m

not going to support a bill or an amendment that has flaws

in it. And I’m willing to work with the governor. I’ve

told her that a dozen times on this bill.

LOVALLO: But it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, one of the

issues is between the Democrats and the Republicans. The

Democrats are pushing for judges to continue to have

discretion and the Democrats don’t want that discretion.

Would you agree that that’s the difference?

Rep. AMANN: Say it again. You’re saying that the

Republicans–

LOVALLO: The Republicans don’t want discretion, judges’

discretion. The Democrats want judges’ discretion

Rep. AMANN: Well, you certainly do. This isn’t China,

Dan. I think a lot of people believe that someone gets a

violent crime and then instantly goes to jail.

You still are innocent until proven guilty. You’ve still

got to go before a judge. You still have to go before

people of your peers. And you have to give flexibility.

If not, they’ll negotiate it out and stop the process,

judicial process, of trying to convict somebody.

That’s the way it really works. This isn’t fantasy land

nor is it something of a concept. We have a constitution

to follow and that’s not the way it works in the real

world.

LOVALLO: What–

Rep. AMANN: Let me make one other statement. Since we

wrote the bill, the original bill and what we’ve done in

the state–in 1994 there were 6,000 prisoners. There are

19,000 prisoners now. Somebody’s going to jail. There are

18,000 violent criminal offenses in 1994. The recent stat

came out. There’s less than 8,000.

We have less violent crimes than there were in 1994 when

the bill was written. We have more prisoners. So things

are working.

You need to have flexibility and you need to have

discretion for the judges and for the prosecutors to make

the system work. People might want to change that–throw

them away without due process. If that’s the way we’ve got

to do here–that’s what China does–we’ll do it. But until

that day comes, we still live under our constitution.

LOVALLO: But, Mr. Speaker, how does setting mandatory

minimum–which is what the Republicans are proposing–how

does that throw away due process?

Rep. AMANN: Because what will happen is a defense attorney

will come in here and say, listen, pal, you’re going to

jail for the rest of your life and that’s all you got.

So what do you want to do? Is there any place to plea

bargain it, to negotiate it? Absolutely none. So they’ll

all ask for trials. They all ask to go before judges and

juries.

And what happens in those cases is the process backs up,

backlog, bureaucracy, and then what you have is you have a

system that breaks down and stops. That’s how the system

works in America.

You need to have prosecutors and judges and others–defense

attorneys–to have some discretion in the law in order to

make it work.

And I said 6,000 prisoners in ‘94. There are 19,000

prisoners now. There were 18,000 violent offenses in ‘94,

and less than 8,000 now. Something is working in

Connecticut.

This was a horrible tragedy that had nothing to do with

“Three Strikes.” It had to do with talking–bad

communications between prosecutors and the parole board and

correction officers. Someone broke the law when they did

that.

And if Bob Farr got that information the way he should

have, and knowing the man he is, he would have never let

this guy out of jail. We wouldn’t be having this

conversation.

LOVALLO: Now can you understand the sound bite that was

played–if people hear that, they’re going to come away

thinking the speaker of the House was for “Three Strikes”

before he was against “Three Strikes.”

Rep. AMANN: No. I think if you listen to it, I said there

was a problem in some part, a problem in the language. The

language had not changed since the day I was on the show.

I would have loved to have seen some way that that language

changed to make it better.

The Senate certainly didn’t do anything about it. We tried

to have some conversations with the governor. It just

didn’t happen.

So this is the way it came out that day. This is a bill

that creates new crime of home invasion. It got the GPS

systems which I had to fight for, that Brad Davis and I–I

committed to him we would get more on the global

positioning system which I believe in. We did.

You have a good strong law that everybody admits–everybody

who voted for it says it’s a great law, except for the

partisan politics and the appeasing “Three Strikes” bill

they know doesn’t work.

There are many attorneys–they know how the system works.

And I’m telling you I think it’s a little bit going too

far…

LOVALLO: But, Mr. Speaker–

Rep. AMANN: …these guys are trying to appease

people–that somehow their “Three Strikes” bill is a bill

that works.

LOVALLO: OK.

Rep. AMANN: They’re dead wrong, Dan.

LOVALLO: I’ve got here a story from today’s Republican-

American by Paul Hughes. And he writes, Democratic leader

said the judiciary committee will introduce a “Three

Strikes” bill identical to legislation that Republicans

have proposed. Are you aware of that?

Rep. AMANN: I haven’t heard that. And I would ask them

why they would do that. Nobody’s had that conversation

with me. So I don’t know what leaders they’re talking

about.

LOVALLO: If the Republican concept of not giving judges

discretion is so bad, why would Democratic leaders be

proposing that in the next session?

Rep. AMANN: First of all, make sure the story is accurate.

I can’t see someone offering exactly same piece of

legislation that they debated on for 17 hours that day just

to bring up exactly the same language. I think Paul needs

to make sure that’s accurate before I make comment on it.

LOVALLO: OK, but to get something straight here–

Rep. AMANN: By the way, I wouldn’t vote for it. If it’s

the same language, why would I vote for it? I mean

that’s–that’s stupid.

LOVALLO: But that statement on the radio–and you also

said a similar statement on my program, but we have the

Brad sound bite. Weren’t you aware at the time the

Republicans were not proposing judges’ discretion?

Rep. AMANN: First of all, the proposal was not the

Republicans. It was Governor Rell’s proposal, if you

recall. I didn’t agree with any other proposals that

Republicans had on the table because the prosecutors and

the governor’s own task force said that they wouldn’t work.

So if you listen to the experts, why would I even consider

that? The governor’s one had some merit to it, one that I

could support, and it had some flawed language. The

language was never corrected. If we correct the language,

I’ll be the first one standing with the governor as I was

that day in the press conference as we supported 99 percent

of the bill, mostly from her task force that I think did an

excellent job–then I’ll support it.

But again, why would I be against a “Three Strike” proposal

when I was one of the original sponsors of this bill in

‘94? It’s nonsense. If it works, I will vote for it.

If it doesn’t work–just like you when you do a baseball

game, you’re not going to make up the score. You’re going

to tell what’s accurate and what the guy’s batting average

is and make sure those figures are accurate. It’s the same

thing with me. I’m not going put out or support something

that’s flawed that I mentioned on the show until it’s

corrected.

And when it’s corrected–a bill that I like and believed in

for a long period of time–I will support it.

LOVALLO: But to wrap things up, Mr. Speaker, what you’re

saying is then you cannot support “Three Strikes” law if

judges don’t have discretion?

Rep. AMANN: In our system in America they have to have

discretion, unless we’re going to change the Constitution

and change the way we do business. Neither one of these

two individuals would have been convicted anywhere in the

United States under anybody’s “Three Strikes.”

That’s the facts. That’s the way the system works. If

people want to change the Constitution, then when they

change it, I’ll be the first one at bat with them telling

them when the new system comes in what we need to do. But

that’s the system we live under.

LOVALLO: Mr. Speaker, thanks very much for spending time

with us this afternoon.

Rep. AMANN: It’s always a pleasure, Dan. And I’d love to

talk to you in the future.

LOVALLO: Take care.

Rep. AMANN: Take care.

LOVALLO: The speaker of the House, Jim Amann.