The study is remarkable in its breadth and scope; it analyzed 4686 murder cases spanning 34 years to see whether the application of the death penalty was arbitrary in any fashion. The results are telling and a sizeable slap across the face of The Constitution State. The NYT sums up the numbers nicely:

Of those [4686 murders], 205 were death-eligible cases that resulted in some kind of conviction, either through a plea bargain or conviction at trial. The arbitrariness started at the charging level: nearly a third of these death-eligible cases were not charged as capital offenses as they could have been, but as lesser crimes. Sixty-six defendants were convicted of capital murder, 29 went to a hearing for a death sentence, nine death sentences were sustained and one person was executed.

In order to evaluate the arbitrariness of the imposition of the death penalty, Prof. Donohue devised an egregiousness scale and applied it to each case:

It considered four factors: victim suffering (like duration of pain); victim characteristics (like age, vulnerability); defendant’s culpability (motive, intoxication or premeditation); and the number of victims. He enlisted students from two law schools to rate each case (based on fact summaries without revealing the case’s outcome or the race of the defendant or victim) on a scale from 1 to 3 (most egregious) for each of the four factors. The raters also gave each case an overall subjective assessment of egregiousness, from 1 (low) to 5 (high), to ensure that more general reactions could be captured.

The results are either stunning or completely unsurprising, depending on your point of view or naivete. For example, the study completely undermines the most often repeated defense of the death penalty in CT and elsewhere: that it’s reserved for only the “worst of the worst”. As this NYT graphic demonstrates, the study found that only one of the 32 “most egregious” crimes in CT resulted in the imposition of the death penalty. Further, the study found no real disparity in the “egregiousness” of the crimes that resulted in a sentence of LWPOR and the death sentence, thus further underscoring the idea that the death penalty was nothing but arbitrary.

It even supported the vast geographic disparity in Connecticut: a murder in the death penalty capital of CT – Waterbury – was seven times more likely to result in a death sentence than in any other jurisdiction in the State. If the chances of an individual getting a death sentence increase by 700% merely because of the physical location of that crime, then that is the very definition of arbitrary.

The study’s findings also supported those of other nationwide studies that the race of the defendant and the victim play a major role in determining whether the death penalty is imposed:

not only are minority on white murders getting harsher treatment controlling for all of the factors specified above, but this harsher treatment is substantial.  Minority on white murders are charged as capital felonies at a roughly 21 or 22 percentage point higher rate (see columns 2, 3, 5, and 6 in row 2 of Table 22) and receive death sentences at a roughly 4 to 8 percentage point higher rate (see columns 2, 3, 5, and 6 in row 2 of Table 23).  A sense of the importance of these estimated effects can be gained by comparing these effects against the overall charging and sentencing rates.

For instance, the overall rate of capital charging from the data set of 205 death-eligible cases is roughly 67 percent (as indicated in Table 21). Clearly, a 21 or 22 percentage point increase in charging for a racially defined class of crimes is a notably large number.  Similarly, when the overall death sentencing rate in the sample is only 4.4 percent (see Table 21), an elevated death sentencing rate for minority on white crimes on the order of magnitude of 4 to 8 percent is obviously sizeable.

Indeed, the harsher sentencing of minority defendants who kill whites is even greater (proportionally) than the increase in the capital charging rates experienced by this same group.  The proportionally greater death sentencing rate suggests that minority on white murders receive harsher treatment not only by virtue of initial prosecutorial decisions to charge death-eligible cases as capital felonies, although this is clearly one component, but also because of subsequent racially biased decisions of prosecutors and/or judges and juries subsequent to the initial charging decision.

The study is also a delightful read because it takes the counter-study of the State’s expert and rips it to shreds. It cuts through the “rhetoric and unfounded speculations” made by the State’s expert and presents the findings of that study as following:

1.  There are enormous and unexplained geographic disparities.
2.  Death sentences are not confined to the worst murders.
3.  There is gender bias in death sentencing.
4.  There is racial bias in capital outcomes.
5.  There is arbitrariness in the key charging and sentencing decisions of the Connecticut
death penalty system.

That sounds awfully like the State’s expert agrees with the defense expert.

The report concludes as one would expect: with a plea to the court and the legislature to take into account the findings of the study and to do something to fix the problem (or, in my opinion, do away with it entirely). If you read the entire report, it will leave you with no doubt that the death penalty as it stands is unworkable and geographically and racially disparate and that its application is nothing but arbitrary, a clear violation of Furman and the Eight Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As the legislature heads into its short session in February, it would be wise to look at this report and address the concerns raised by it. Now that that trial is over, perhaps we will talk honestly about the problems created by the death penalty in Connecticut and look seriously to abolition.

I know what you were thinking. Pervert.

As I snarked (yes, it’s a verb now) on Twitter last night as Governor Malloy delivered his end of the session speech to a joint session of the legislature, yesterday was the first time since 1990 that a Connecticut governor uttered the words “criminal justice reform” and I didn’t want to throw something at the television.

The reason for this new-found restraint isn’t the deep meditation I’ve been practicing, but rather the reality that the legislature did indeed pass some sensible reforms this year. As the nation turns red, Connecticut turned blue, not only in the criminal justice arena but others as well. There was the paid sick leave [full coverage here] bill, the transgender identity bill and the in-state tuition for undocumented students bill. But as is the case with politics generally, there were many things left undone. Here’s a roundup of the criminal justice bills that passed and those that didn’t.

First, the good bills that passed:

• Decriminalization of possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana.
• Risk Reduction Credit: the first piece of “smart on crime legislation” to pass the legislature this year (scroll to section 22), this bill provides for 5 days per month of credit towards a reduction in the overall sentence of an inmate. It seems similar to a “good time” bill, but it really isn’t, because there are several offenses that are ineligible for this risk reduction credit and the credit applies only to inmates who participate in programs and maintain good behavior.
• Home confinement for DUI and drug offenders: as advertised. Scroll to section 26 & 27.
• Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations: finally a videotaping of interrogations bill and yet it feels so incomplete. This bill applies to people accused of capital felonies and Class A & B felonies only. Plus, it doesn’t go into effect until 2014, because apparently, in the 21st century, it’s far to burdensome for police departments to buy a goddamn videocamera and record something. Still, better than nothing.
• Eyewitness ID reform: another half-measure as the bill now requires double-blind identification procedures “where feasible” but leaves sequential procedures for a “task force” to study. Study what, exactly, I don’t know.
• An Act Concerning Competency To Stand Trial: I haven’t fully perused this bill yet, but it seems to make some changes to the restoration to competency procedure.
• Prevention of Prison Rape: this is a terrific bill designed to prevent rape in prisons, which is a real problem. Read the NH Advocate for more.

Bills that should have passed but didn’t:

• Reducing the radius around schools, within which drug offenders face enhanced penalties, from 1500 feet to 200 feet: This was another great bill that died at the last second, with time running out. This would’ve made another “smart on crime” change, reducing the enhanced penalty zone around schools to 200 feet. As it currently stands, at 1500 feet, major cities have almost no spots that aren’t within that radius of a school. In New Haven, there’s only one: in the middle of a golf course. Too bad. Maybe next year.
• An Act Making It Clear That It’s Legal To Record Police Officers: This bill, ostensibly proposed in the wake of the Luis Luna fiasco, had great momentum, passing the Senate last week, but then it languished on the House calendar and was never put to a vote.
• An Act Concerning Speedy Trials: another smart bill that sought to prevent the problem of people being incarcerated pre-trial for longer than the maximum punishment. Unfortunately, it didn’t get as much as a sniff in either the House or Senate.
• An Act Concerning Sentence Modifications: a favorite of inmates, this bill would’ve removed the current requirement that all inmates serving sentences of 3 years or more need the permission of a prosecutor to even have their modification request heard by a judge. Essentially the bill would’ve removed prosecutors’ ability to cock-block. It didn’t get far.

The bills that shouldn’t have passed and didn’t:

• An Act Designed To Make a Mockery of The Great Writ: This stupid bill keep getting proposed every year and every year it gets tougher and tougher to beat it back, for some reason. This year it made it out of committee, but thankfully died before a vote in either chamber. I’ve written extensively on why this is a bad, stupid, dangerous bill.
• An Act Equating a Motor Vehicle With A Fiream: Here. I’ll let you read the summary: ‘To make the penalty for the offense of manslaughter with a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, consistent with the penalty for manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and provide for a rebuttable presumption that any person who causes the death of another person while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug, or both, did so evincing an extreme indifference to human life in a manner that constitutes manslaughter in the first degree.’ The penalty for manslaughter with a firearm? 45 years. That’s forty five. Thankfully this abomination, after passing the Senate (!), stalled in the House.
• The DNA upon arrest bill: I wasn’t aware of this, but the bill passed with a great amendment: it applies only to those accused of serious felonies and who have been convicted of a felony in the past and haven’t provided a DNA sample. So, basically, it means no change in the law. [Link is to the House Amendment that was approved by the Senate, essentially the relevant portion of the bill.]
• Establishing a ‘gun offender’ registry: this was a novel idea but didn’t make it far.
• Thanks to Capitol Watch for reminding me about the stricter penalties for cell phone use while driving bills that apparently went quietly into that gentle night.

The bill I wish never passes, so we can keep talking about it forever:

• The Ryan McKeen loves Susan Bysiewicz bill: This would have eliminated the hotly contested “active practice” requirement for someone wishing to be Attorney General. The House passed it, the Senate didn’t vote.

You can find a very unhelpful list of all the bills passed here. If any of you so much as thinks about mentioning ‘d____ p______’, I will /kickban you.

For those who don’t get the title of this post or the hilarious picture of Tobias Funke, here’s context:

yes, officer, this weed is mine.

Connecticut’s legislature today voted to decriminalize the possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana. For those who don’t know, the picture above is of half an ounce of pot. That’s a lot.

In celebration of the impending signing of the bill by the Governor, I am conducting an experiment: this post is being typed while I am completely high¹. I have Pink Floyd playing in the background, Half Baked on the television and my good buddy Jim Breuer mumbling on the telephone.

The bill makes it an infraction to possess less than half an ounce, resulting only in monetary fines and confiscation for said pot, presumably for the officers to smoke.

[Former Judiciary Committee co-chair and current criminal justice advisor to the Governor Mike] Lawlor said many of the 2,000 people each year who are convicted of possessing less than a half ounce of marijuana do complete one of the several programs that wipe their record clean upon completion.

But the conviction being on a permanent record is not the only problem, he said.

“In this day and age, the minute you get arrested that’s public record and remains a public record… That’s there forever,” he said. “When employers Google your name that will pop up.”

“Those are records they have to explain the rest of their lives” when applying for jobs, financial aid for college and when attempting to join the military, [Judiciary Committee co-chair] Fox said. “This [bill] would change that.”

Also: it’s pot. But of course, the Repubs brought out the “gateway drug” argument³. So, after typing this post I’m going to raid my mom’s medicine cabinet, pop some percocet and then head down to the corner to score some meth¹. Brb.

And now here’s a picture, shamelessly stolen from the Hartford Advocate, followed by a video. Suggest your own theme song for this awesome event in the comments. Man.

wait, what...?

¹No, don’t be stupid. I’m writing this post drunk, as usual. I’ve never partaken of illegal drugs.^2
2Not within any active statute of limitations, anyway.
³No, seriously. Smoke responsibly. Don’t smoke and drive. Don’t smoke and tweet.

Explains State Rep Hewitt, a proponent of the bill:

“If I walked out of this door right now and I was arrested for rape with an eyewitness and there was DNA found on the scene of that rape — God help me I wish they would take my DNA.

I’d wish the same too. And you know what? They do. It’s usually titled ‘Motion for Non-Testimonial Evidence’ and is always granted, because there’s no basis to object. Then the police take a buccal swab of the defendant, do some science-y magic and decide if you’re the guy. It. Happens. All. The. Time.

Said another:

Rep. Don Clemons, D-Bridgeport, said it was the rape and murder of his son’s mother more than 30 years ago in Bridgeport that makes him inclined to support the bill. He said from 1978 to 1982 there were eight women abducted from Bridgeport and later found strangled and raped. To this day, those cases remain unsolved, he said.

“When I saw this piece of legislation Rep. Hewett produced, it brings back haunting memories,” he said, but he added that the measure could provide resolution for the families affected by those crimes.

And so you’d think there was no hope for individual freedoms and liberties in the Constitution State. But there is. And his name is Peter Tercyak, D-New Britain. Which brings us to the greatest quote ever:

Personally I’ve long argued that we won’t be robbed of our liberties at gun point. We will freely give them up one at a time to solve one problem at a time with our hearts being tugged by one truly horrible story at a time,” he said. “That’s why we’ve coded our liberties as we have.

Take a minute and read it again. Isn’t it beautiful?

“They should bypass the trial and take that second animal and hang him by his penis from a tree out in the middle of Main Street,”

State Senator Edith Prague, D-Lots of Places That Are Not Cheshire, CT, who was for the death penalty before she was against it, before she was for it again, but only for one man.

The abolition of the death penalty in Connecticut was already hanging on by the thinnest of wires, thanks to Governor Malloy’s decision to take several Senators into his administration. The vote was a very, very close one. And that was before Sen. Prague’s comments today, after she had a meeting with Dr. He Who Shall Not Be Named, CT’s favorite victim.

But lets be clear: Sen. Prague may not have changed her stance on the death penalty in general – she may very well vote for abolition next time, she magnanimously informs us – but in this one instance, she wants the government of Connecticut to murder a man:

Prague indicated she may still support future efforts to abolish the death penalty but said, this year, she couldn’t look Petit in the face and “not give him something that would make his life a little easier.”

And more:

“I actually believe in repealing the death penalty,” said Prague, a senator for 16 years. “For Dr. Petit, for me to do one more thing to cause him some kind of angst, I can’t do it.”

…

Prague’s voice broke today as she recounted her visit from Petit.

“I can still see Dr. Petit’s face in front of me. Oh, my god in heaven. I’m doing it because that’s what they came in for,” Prague said. “They brought their lawyer and said, ‘If you vote for the repeal, it would make it more difficult.”

And she’s not the only one:

Sen. Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, who voted for repeal two years ago, said he also has reconsidered as a result of conversations with Petit.

Those who are regular readers know that I am not easily left at a loss for words. To say that these comments left me reeling would be an understatement. So let me state this in terms that should not be misunderstood by anyone: Sen Edith Prague is deciding policy in the State of Connecticut based on the wishes of one man.

She may well be the deciding vote that defeats the abolition bill and she is doing so, not because of some moral opposition to the death penalty, but because one survivor made a personal request to her. And what of the others? Those survivors who are opposed to abolition? Did she even bother to listen to their opinions? Can she look them in the face and make their life easier? Or is their loss not the same? Must we always side with vengeance and “justice” over mercy and compassion? Where do you want to be, at the end?

Connecticut’s capitulation to the person in question is well documented: our former Governor Rell repeatedly invoked his name in defeating criminal justice and death penalty abolition bills. Public opinion polls routinely separate one particular case from the idea in general when asking about the death penalty. And apparently, a majority of Connecticut’s citizens would agree with Sen. Prague.

It is one thing, however, for the general populace to voice such opinions – they should and are entitled to it. It is quite another for an elected representative, who takes an oath, to put aside policy considerations for the specific interest of one individual.

Make no mistake: this is the State of Connecticut explicitly stating that Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes are to be murdered. This should trouble you. The machinery of two governmental branches of the State have now maneuvered and conspired to bring about the deaths of two individuals.

If two elected representatives to State Government are so moved by their desire not to “make it more difficult” for this survivor, what chance do 12 members of a jury have?

I offer an analogy – admittedly weak, because nothing can adequately capture the gravity of the State’s decision to murder someone – but nonetheless: If this were not an abolition bill, but a bill to raise taxes and Sen Edith Prague made public comments that while she supports raising taxes and it will benefit the State, one individual from a city not in her jurisdiction came to her and begged her not to, because it would affect him personally, and so she will be voting against raising taxes this time. How hard would you laugh at her?

If the State can so contort itself to train its crosshairs on these two individuals – so explicitly, so blatantly and without any shame – why do you think you’re not next?

I suppose, on balance, an abolitionist might gain some small measure of hope from the fact that these public comments, with their explicit emphasis on the desire to please one individual over greater policy, would make it almost impossible for an appellate court to affirm the death sentence for a man so clearly and publicly marked for death. Upon rumination, however, I do not share that optimism. I have no faith in any of the branches of Government of this State. And they haven’t given me any reason to.

Whether you are for or against the death penalty is, in my opinion, entirely irrelevant to this post. Sen. Prague’s comments and her willingness to cow-tow to the emotional machinations of one individual should put the fear of God in all of us.

Today, we can no longer say that there is a divide between “them” and “us”. Today, Sen. Prague has made us all animals.

The title only really works if you imagine it being uttered by Mel “before he went crazy – or maybe he always was” Gibson essaying the role of William Wallace in that stirring monologue near the end that is actually said to have never happened (There’s some trivia for you).

But it is indisputable that some of the lunacy that has infected the good actor’s mind has seeped into the brains of certain state legislators, for how else would one explain a new proposed bill that would make talking on a cell phone punishable by imprisonment?

Raised Bill 6366 would make the penalty for a second violation of the no-talking-on-cell-phones-while-driving law up to three months in jail:

(h) Any person who violates subsection (b), (c) or (d) of this section shall, for a first violation, be fined one hundred dollars, and, for a second or subsequent violation, be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three months, or both.

It would also give the police the immediate authority to suspend a driver’s license for a period of 24 hours, without a hearing, or due process, which up until now were within the exclusive kangaroo jurisdiction of courts and the Department of Motor Vehicles.

I’ll get back to the “3 months in jail” provision in a bit, because there are other problems with the bill as drafted that also merit attention. For example, the bill makes it illegal to talk on the phone or send text messages, but does not make it illegal to hold “a hand-held mobile telephone to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone”.

There is an exception for a “hands-free” device which:

means a hand-held mobile telephone that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such hand-held mobile telephone, by which a user engages in a call without the use of either hand, whether or not the use of either hand is necessary to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone.

So, it would seem, I can answer a call, put the phone on speaker and talk away to my heart’s content. Or can I? It is also illegal to have “engage in a call” in one’s “immediate proximity”:

(7) “Immediate proximity” means the distance that permits the operator of a hand-held mobile telephone to hear telecommunications transmitted over such hand-held mobile telephone, but does not require physical contact with such operator’s ear.

Whaaa? So can I use the speaker function, or can’t I? The bill also makes it a rebuttable presumption that anyone who holds a phone to, or in the “immediate proximity” of his ear is engaged in a call. The presumption can be rebutted by one proving that there was indeed no call taking place.

And of course, the bill also makes it clear that getting pulled over for this violation does not give police the authority to seize or forfeit the phone.

Nifty little trick there. It places the burden of proof – of innocence – on the accused and then forces that accused to give up his fourth amendment right to be free from illegal search and seizure in order to prove that innocence.

The only way that someone can prove that they were not engaged in a call is to take out the phone and show the officer that they were not, indeed, making a call. But courts have held recently that there is some grounds for a right to privacy in one’s telephone, thus triggering the Fourth.

[Although, this particular "problem" is taken care of by Raised Bill 961, another bill on talking-while-driving, which directs the police to seize the cell phone for a period of 48 hours. I suggest that each one of you create a password on your cellphones and calmly remind the officer that he is violating your fourth amendment rights and that he obtain a warrant prior to seizing the cell phone.]

Of course, the biggest problem with this bill is that it creates criminal liability for acts that are so poorly defined and that really should not be the subject of criminalization.

Making one of the potential penalties 3 months’ imprisonment brings with it the attendant rights of anyone who is exposed to a deprivation of liberty. Which means due process, the right to counsel, etc. And that means greater resources and more time wasted on something that really even the police themselves can’t be bothered to police. In other words, I smell pretext.

H/T: Capitol Watch

So in a year where the only focus should be the economy, stupid, there already is no dearth of head scratch inducing bills that have been or are about to be proposed in the State legislature. I bring you these only as I can – with heaping amounts of derision.

So let’s get started:

Proposed S.B. 104: An act concerning the penalty for the sexual assault of a minor. Don’t bother reading it, it’s a proposed bill so there’s nothing more than a statement of purpose. I’ll tell you what the proposal is: one strike. Yes. One strike for people convicted of sexual assault of a minor under “certain circumstances”. That means, under “certain circumstances” you sexually assault a minor, the penalty is life.

I’ll tell you why such boneheaded bills get proposed: publicity and feeding into hysteria. Senator Witkos, who must know that there’s no chance in frozen Connecticut that his bill will pass, has introduced it only so he can look “tough on crime” (which we all know is on the way out and there’s no chance in frozen Connecticut Witkos will ever look ‘smart’ on crime). The implications of a bill such as this are frightening nonetheless. Apart from the severity of the penalty, there will almost certainly be no more plea bargaining for this sort of offense. What’s the incentive? None. Go to trial. Watch the system crumble. Watch children further traumatized. Good times, Witkos.

Proposed S.B. 87: An act concerning the prevention of convicted felons from receiving state social service benefits. If you thought 104 above was the extent of Witkos’ bright ideas, let me disabuse you of that notion. Here is another of his bright ideas. The statement of purpose is laughably uppity: To require that persons receiving state aid are law abiding citizens.

I hope, dear reader, that you have no need for me to list the various ways that this bill is a bad idea and insidious at worst. Whether the chicken came before the egg, the impact of this bill will squarely fall on the minority communities of Connecticut, whom some might argue have the greatest need for social services.

Proposed S.B. 395: An act concerning drug testing for recipients of cash assistance benefits. It seems that Sen. Kane is drinking whatever Witkos is. This bill would require periodic drug testing (yes, let out that sigh right about now) of people on state welfare. Hey, at least it’s no “one strike” bill. A first offense requires an evaluation. A second requires mandatory (!) drug abuse treatment and only a third will strip away benefits. Because there’s nothing like making poor people poorer to get them to stop using drugs.

Proposed S.B. 142: The “DNA upon arrest” bill. The problems with this type of DNA collection are well documented as are my objections to it. (More on this bill here.)

Proposed S.B. 695: The “gun offender registry” bill. Proposed by longtime Senator Looney (now you get it), the bill would create a registry, similar to the sex offender registry, of people convicted of using guns during specified crimes. It helps keep track of gun users or something, apparently.

But I can’t hate on Looney too much, because for every crappy bill like the above, he proposes several good ones. For example, the bill legalizing less than an ounce of marijuana, the bill reducing the “drug free zones” to only 200 feet as opposed to 1500 feet and only during school hours, the bill to videotape interrogations, the bill to automatically make provisional pardons final after 5 years of crime free life (beautifully titled “To allow former offenders a better way to become productive members of society”), the bill making it illegal to detain in pre-trial status people charged with misdemeanors for longer than the maximum punishment (aka the bill “To create a more rational criminal justice system”);

and finally S.B. 788 which would give citizens the right to sue police departments who interfere with a citizen’s right to photograph or videotape events as long as they are not interfering with the police’s ability to perform their duty. Perhaps because of this or this?

Proposed H.B. 6076: The “residency restrictions” bill. Proposed once again by Rep. Roldan of Hartford, this is a reprise of the bill from last year, creating a 2000 foot buffer zone around schools, bus stops, parks, etc., prohibiting sex offenders from living there. You really want a link to my opposition? Fine. Word on the street is that Roldan himself is pretty sure that the bill won’t pass and yet has to introduce it to…I don’t know…avoid talking about the budget?

The Day of New London has more on other silly bills that shouldn’t have even taken seed in the minds of our esteemed legislators, but yet, here we are.

Oh, there’s a death penalty abolition and eyewitness ID reform bill too, but those deserve their own posts.

Holder-Winfield has also introduced other necessary criminal justice reform legislation, like adopting the best practices for eyewitness identification procedures and videotaping interrogations. He has “pre-filed” a bill addressing the former once again.

Of course, with the just concluded Hayes trial and the upcoming circus in the trial of his co-defendant Joshua Komisarjevsky, the debate on the death penalty bill is likely to be emotional, contentious and close. But no one can accuse Holder-Winfield of falling prey to the typical abolitionist tendencies of avoiding confrontation and “waiting for the right moment”, which almost never materializes, because there’s always a heinous crime around which the pro-death penalty folks will rally.

With newly elected anti-death penalty Dan Malloy taking over the reins of the State for the next 4 years, there’s a sliver of hope for abolition.

H/T: CTNJ

Rell, intent on breaking the world record for vetoes and dumbass moves as Governor before she leaves office this year (can that day come soon enough? I say no), vetoed yet another important criminal justice bill yesterday. The bill, which would have created a sentencing commission to evaluate the state’s statutes and sentencing practices and analyze them for disparity – including those of the racial kind – apparently carried a very hefty price tag, which is what prompted her veto.

The gargantuan sum of $130,000 a year easily dwarfed the $150,000 price tag for each of the 9 new judges that she nominated, that the State didn’t need, but were eventually confirmed.

“While I appreciate the need for review of our sentencing statutes and practices, given our State’s ongoing economic challenges, this is simply the wrong time to create yet another state entity,” Rell said. “I have spent much of the last year examining our state budget to find ways to save money so that we would not have to increase the burden borne by our already struggling taxpayers. Some of the cuts we have made were painful; none were easy.”

She said. I rolled my eyes.

She seems to think that the judiciary committee of our part-time legislature can effectively perform the same tasks that this commission would have been charged with. What did that very same committee have to say about it?

Sen. Andrew J, McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, disagreed strongly though, arguing his panel has neither the staff nor the othe resources needed to conduct this research.

McDonald added the legislation not only enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in the legislature but had “universal backing” from the chief state’s attorney’s office, criminal defense lawyers and criminal justice advocates. “This legislation held the prospect of creating a more coherent and sustainable system for implementing fair and proportional sentences,” he added. “We held a public hearing and nobody testified against it. And up until this veto, we’ve had no input from the governor’s office.”

The legislature is tentatively scheduled to meet in special session on June 21, and could attempt to override the governor’s veto later this month. That would require a two-thirds’ vote in both chambers. McDonald said he believes a veto override attempt would be appropriate, but he hasn’t discussed that option yet with legislative leadership.

Right. So once again, her thinly veiled politicking and Alice in Wonderland reasoning take precedence over, you know, the rights of the citizens of Connecticut and the welfare of the State.

Is it November yet?

Today, at 5:00pm, the Judiciary Committee of the state legislature closed for business, just like any other day. But today is important for two reasons: 1) It was the last day on which the committee could vote on bills; 2) This marked the first year that the eyewitness identification reform bill passed and will now head to the legislature for a full vote.

There are several bills I’ve been tracking for a while now, of interest to me and the regular reader. We now know the fate of all those bills (here’s a list of all bills voted out of committee and here’s a list of those that were on the agenda).

Good news:

The biggest news, in my opinion, is that the eyewitness identification reform bill received enough votes to make it out of committee (it died in committee last year). This is a tremendous step forward in the quest for adoption of best practices in lineups and photo arrays.

In addition, the sex offender residency restriction bill was never called to vote, and so unless it’s added as an amendment to a bill that did pass, it has died. (My problems with this bill were documented in this post.)

Another year and another assault on the dignity of The Great Writ has been turned away. The habeas corpus “reform” bill also died in committee, never being called to a vote.

For the second year in a row, the Adam Walsh fearmongering and bleeding money Act also failed to make it out of committee.

The innocuously titled “Act Concerning Subpoenas for Property” also wasn’t called to a vote and went away quietly. Don’t get fooled by the title. This was a very, very dangerous investigative subpoena bill, essentially granting the state to subpoena whatever the hell they wanted from whomever they wanted, even in the absence of a pending criminal prosecution/investigation. It essentially spat in the face of the Fourth Amendment.

An act seeking to create a mandatory-minimum sentence for assault of a public safety officer made it out of committee, but if I recall correctly, without the mandatory minimum.

Three bills hell bent on pushing Connecticut closer to fulfilling Orwell’s prophecy, one to remove the statute of limitations on perjury in murder cases; one to remove the statute of limitations for hindering murder prosecutions and one making it a crime to fail to report a “serious crime” against a child.

The “sexting” bill made it out of committee. But that could be a good or bad thing depending on your point of view. Me, personally? I don’t care either way.

Bad news:

I’ve always viewed the eyewitness ID bill and the videotaping of interrogations bill as two peas in a pod. Fraternal twins, if you will. Where one goes, so should the other. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case today. I’m not even sure the videotaping of interrogations bill was called for a vote. One step at a time, I guess. There’s always next year (says he, sounding awfully like a Red Sox fan. I need a shower).

The big-ticket news item of the day is the passage of the bill eliminating the statute of limitations for civil suits in child sexual assault cases. It’s not criminal, per se, but a stupid idea nonetheless.

A statewide ban the box proposal was called for a vote, but derailed and then “held”, which is lege-speak for killed.

For the second year, a bill seeking to reduce the zone around schools within which drug offenses triggered an enhanced penalty from 1500 feet to 200 feet. In addition, the penalty would have been triggered only for sales made within school hours. This was a much needed bill and I’m sad that it died.

I’m sure there are others that I’ve missed. Which bill did you want to see make it out of committee and which bill are you glad/mad didn’t?