As I mentioned in my last post on bills that died, there was mix of good and bad among the bills that passed through the judiciary committee and have a chance of making it into our statute books. Leave it to me, your trusty intrepid CT legal reporter, to tell you which bills are good and bad.
Bills I’d like to see pass:
- An act concerning disease prevention in the correctional system
- An act concerning Larceny (increases the monetary thresholds for larcenies)
- The prospective death penalty abolition bill
- An act changing the distance from schools/public housing projects, etc within which drugs sellers are subject to additional penalties. The change is from 1500 feet to 200 feet!
- An act requiring the Risk Assessment Board to determine what, if any, provisions of the AWA to adopt and to determine a risk assessment procedure.
- An act establishing a permanent sentencing commission.
- An act making the possession of 1 oz or less of marijuana an infraction.
- An act eliminating the requirement that defendants need a prosecutor’s permission before seeking a sentence modification.
- An act concerning the attorney occupational tax (exemption state employees from paying the tax)
Bills that really shouldn’t pass:
- An act increasing the penalty for engaging an officer in pursuit
- An act making the failure to report a crime an A misdemeanor punishable by 1 year in prison.
- An act extending collection of DNA to people convicted of misdemeanors.
I think that’s it! Did I miss anything? Did I miss your favorite bill? Let me know in the comments.
Both entries are right on point.
I really don’t understand the purpose of the “failure to report” a crime bill. Hopefully there aren’t enough votes to pass.
Someone had a constituent who was raped, I believe, and the mother sat by as it happened (while the girl was in the son’s room screaming for help). The bill grew out of a constituent concern. I understand why it was offered I just don’t like it.
and that’s how these things go, I guess. I just wish legislation wasn’t so reactionary.
Conn.’s attempt at a cyberstalking law (sHB-6357) seems to run afoul of the Constitution:
sHB-6357
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) (a) A person is guilty of cyberstalking when
(1) such person, with intent to harass or intimidate another person uses a computer, computer network or any other electronic device to
(A) broadcast or publish the picture, name, address or phone number of another person without the other person’s consent; or
(B) broadcast harassing, threatening or intimidating content concerning another person; and
(2) such conduct places the other person in reasonable fear for such person’s safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family.
Especially since this law that contains the clause:
C) This section shall not be construed to impair any constitutionally protected activity, including, but not limited to, speech, protest or assembly.
I can be prosecuted if I publish someone’s phone number and this makes someone afraid?