a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee made available the 14 proposals submitted by various lawmakers to reform the criminal justice system. I’ll go through each one in later posts. First up, though, is the proposal submitted [pdf] by the Judiciary Committee co-chairs, which has already received some press coverage.

First, Burglary in the First Degree is amended to include an element called “home invasion”. Home invasion is defined as:

a person “commits a home invasion” when such person enters a dwelling while a person other than a participant in the crime is actually present in the dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein and such dwelling, at the time of such entry, is not open to the public and the actor is not otherwise licensed or privileged to enter such dwelling.

So basically, with this amendment, a burglary would be a home invasion, which is a burglary, unless no one is actually present in which case it is a burglary.

This bill also

Yesterday, CT’s house of representatives passed HB 7085 unanimously (search for 7085), which requires that sex offenders register their “electronic mail address, instant message address or other similar Internet communication identifier, if any“. The bill, however, states that such “identifiers” shall not be public records. It now awaits a vote in the Senate.

For what it’s worth, Myspace supports this bill.

Also, this bill confers residency restriction determinations on the Risk Assessment Board.

(d) The board shall use the risk assessment scale to determine which offenders should be prohibited from residing within one thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school or a facility providing child day care services, as defined in section 19a-77.

It also makes computer techs mandatory reporters.

Sigh.

Previous coverage: “proposed legislation” category.

The Duke Law & Tech Review iBlawg has two very interesting posts on whether MySpace’s decision to block convicted sex offenders from using their services violates either the right to free speech or to due process. As to free speech, the author writes:

The basis for asking if the proposed legislation and MySpace’s actions are a violation of the First Amendment stems from the Supreme Court case John Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. 535 U.S. 234 (2002).In light of Free Speech Coalition, it appears that Congress would have to make a solid argument that all written works from a former sex offender to a teenager are patently offensive in light of community standards and is therefore unprotected speech. The difficulty with this argument is that it depends on what the sexual offender is writing on the social networking website, whether he or she is trying to arrange a meeting with the teenager, and whether the former sex offender is still a danger to the community.

Moreover, the speech that is in question is not harmful in itself; it is the later potentially unlawful actions that are potentially dangerous, indicating the legislation may be overly broad. The only way such speech can be differentiated from the speech in Free Speech Coalition is if a distinction is made between speech produced by non-former sex offenders and speech produced by sex offenders. If made, this distinction raises the question of whether this different treatment violates a sex offender’s right to due process.

On Due Process, she writes:

The Supreme Court has only ruled on two cases regarding sex offender registries and only one of those cases specifically discussed due process.1 In Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003), a Connecticut statute provided for public disclosure of the state’s sex offender registry.Even in the wake of Doe, there are two arguable reasons for why sex offenders are being denied due process rights when banned from social online communities without any determination of their current dangerousness. First, the scope of Doe is very narrow. The Court ruled that Plaintiff already had a hearing when it was determined that he was a sex offender and that the Connecticut statute required the registration of all convicted sex offenders.

Second, in Doe, the online registry was solely for the purpose of public awareness.15 Here, third parties are using the registry to block certain individuals from Internet sites, and such a distinction may change the analysis.

There is more in-depth analysis in the full posts, so I encourage you to read them. I’ve long maintained that Doe ruled on nothing more than procedural due process and the substantive issue was not touched. SCOTUS has yet to consider whether any of these “requirements” or “restrictions” geared toward sex offenders violate substantive due process.

Technorati Tags: sex offenders, myspace, due process, free speech

Perusing the legislature’s list of bills for the past few days, I’ve stumbled upon quite a few legislative proposals dealing with sex offenders and criminal justice. I’ll update this post with links to each subsequent post. There are a few bills I want to address on their own.

• Tender years exception and mandatory minimums
• Computer techs to be made mandatory reporters
• Violent offender registry proposed
• Deadlock legislation in death penalty cases
• Student loan repayment bill

As you can see in the footer, I’ve created a new category “proposed legislation”. I will be posting all future updates on proposed legislation to that category, so that’s an easy reference for those of you interested.

Update: Upon further rumination and discussion, I’m having serious doubts about the enforceability of this proposed legislation. How exactly do they propose to police this?

Would all ISPs be given lists of sex offenders and told not to provide service to them? Would family members of sex offenders also have to give up internet access or at the very least, disable it in some fashion when their sex offender relatives are over?

This is clearly not a very well thought out legislation at all.

Original Post: NJ is considering legislation that would prevent sex offenders from having internet access or simply accessing the internet.

Under the plan, released sex offenders caught using the Internet would face up to 18 months in jail and fines of up to $10,000.

Sex offenders caught using the Internet to solicit a child would face a mandatory five years in jail, rather than the three years they face under current law.

Online dating sites would also have to notify New Jersey residents whether they do background checks, a proposal opposed by Internet companies such as Yahoo!, AOL, eHarmony and Match.com.

Now this is getting completely absurd. They can’t go to school, they can’t go to libraries, they can’t access the internet. Might as well give them a gun.

Montana legislators (there goes my theory) are considering legislation that would make it a felony to not report a sex offender who has not registered.

Rep. Edward Buchanan, R-Torrington, is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He said the bill would make it a felony for a person who knows that a convicted sex offender has failed to register with the state to withhold that information and fail to notify law enforcement.

The judiciary committee determined that a person shouldn’t have to commit an affirmative act to be convicted of this crime. Then the legislators delved into a discussion of the right to remain silent:

Rep. Floyd Esquibel, D-Cheyenne, asked whether people have the right to remain silent if a police officer asks them questions.

Buchanan
responded that people have the right to remain silent if they’re in
police custody, "and you’re already being interrogated." He said he
didn’t believe the right against self-incrimination was applicable to
the proposed legislation.

Rep. Colin Simpson, R-Cody, responded
that people have the right to remain silent so they don’t incriminate
themselves. He said this bill would make it a crime for people not to
talk and incriminate themselves.

"I just have the feeling that
we’re criminalizing victims or family members of offenders, because
they have knowledge of offenders," Simpson said.

What will this mean for lawyers? Each state’s ethics codes vary, but the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6 states the following:

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the
representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes
necessary:

(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or
fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the
financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which
the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;

(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial
injury to the financial interests or property of another that is
reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s
commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has
used the lawyer’s services;

(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;

(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the
lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish
a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based
upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to
allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of
the client; or

(6) to comply with other law or a court order.

Reporting that a client has not complied with registration requirements doesn’t fit within any of the above categories. Yet, it seems that under the broad language of the legislation, an attorney would be guilty of a felony for failing to report that a client has not registered as a sex offender. Any thoughts on this?

The Federal Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [previous commentary here] is facing growing opposition. The bill, introduced by Sen. Kyl and Rep. Lungren would severely restrict Federal Habeas Corpus review. Therefore the poorly titled "streamlined procedures".

Opposition is coming from all quarters, however, and not just from defense lawyers. The LATimes reports [requires registration - if you don't want to register, go here]

Concerns come not only from death-penalty opponents but from individuals and groups not often thought of as vocal supporters of the rights of criminal defendants.

Among the critics are the Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal
group that specializes in religious freedom and antiabortion issues;
Bob Barr, the conservative Republican former congressman from Georgia;
more than 50 former prosecutors; and more than a dozen former federal
judges.

The legislation, opponents say, would dramatically restrict federal
courts’ ability to consider habeas corpus petitions from state
prisoners who claim that their constitutional rights have been violated
or that they have evidence they are innocent.

Sen. Kyl says that the restrictions imposed by the AEDPA aren’t enough and cites an increase in the number of petitions filed - almost 10,000 over the last 10 years. Gee, you think maybe it’s because of longer and stricter sentencing?

Kyl said the bill had an exception that would enable innocent people to obtain relief from a wrongful conviction.

But the former judges — including William H. Webster and William S.
Sessions, both of whom served as directors of the FBI in Republican
administrations — countered that "the language of the exception is so
narrow that it will cover virtually no one."

The former jurists
also said the bill would overturn several recent Supreme Court
decisions interpreting the 1996 death penalty act "as well as several
other decisions of the Rehnquist court, many of which have helped to
further streamline the system and eliminate delays. It serves no one’s
interests to engender the kind of delays that this bill will create" by
precipitating more litigation.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys united in their criticism:

At the [first senate] hearing, Seth P. Waxman, who was U.S. solicitor general in
the Clinton administration, described four death penalty cases in the
last four years in which the Supreme Court found major constitutional
violations overlooked by state courts. In one instance, prosecutors hid
critical information from the defense. In another, the Supreme Court
found that prosecutors had improperly kept blacks off a jury. If the
Kyl-Lungren bill had been in effect, none of those cases would ever
have been reviewed by a federal court, Waxman said.

Attorney Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, which had
played a key role in freeing more than 100 wrongly convicted people —
eight of whom had been on death row — said a number of those people
would be in prison or dead if the proposed legislation had been in
effect.

Scheck told the Judiciary Committee that the proposed
law turned the lesson of those cases "on its head. It threatens to make
what is already a torturous, difficult mountain for the wrongfully
convicted to climb into a wholly impenetrable steel wall."

Anyone who does Habeas work knows how difficult it is to get a petition granted. Case law restrictively defines ineffective assistance and the actual innocence standard is torturous. Hopefully, this legislation won’t pass. Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.

It seems that the wave of panic and corresponding reactionary legislation gripping the nation in regards to sex offenders has finally reached our liberal shores. Gov. Rell proposed new legislation yesterday, in an effort to toughen up CT’s sex offender laws. Among the highlights of this proposed legislation for the next term:

• A new classification of "sexual predator"; defined as one who "preys on young children and the elderly".
• Lifetime registration for sexual predators.
• Lifetime GPS monitoring for all sex offenders.
• Maintaining registration as a condition of parole, and penalties for failing to maintain registration.
• Penalties for anyone "harboring a sex offender".

I don’t even know where to begin. Lifetime registration for all? (Atleast that’s what the news report implies). Even those who were convicted of statutory rape and are therefore, "sex offenders"?

What’s more, her proposal calls for the offenders themselves to pay for the GPS monitoring. Oh, and Governor, there is already a statute for failure to register or to maintain registration. It’s called "Failure to Register" and is a D felony.

The last one is all the more troubling - and is somewhat akin to Sensenbrenner’s Family Snitch law. What does harboring mean? Is she proposing that if person A knows that person B is a sex offender and that person B has not registered, then person A is liable? Or will it be even broader and encompass all those giving shelter to a sex offender? (which, by the way, is becoming more and more difficult).

So you have zoning laws that say sex offenders can’t live within certain areas - and we’re constantly expanding these areas, shelters have strict rules about sex offenders because of the presence of children, landlords won’t allow sex offenders if there are children on the premises or else they’ll get into trouble with the DCF.

Why don’t we do what we all want to do? Pass a NATIONWIDE ordinance/law/statute banning sex offenders. Create an island in the pacific and ship them all off there. Isn’t that what it’s going to come to at some point?

Rationally speaking, why not increase penalties and actually care about rehabilitation in jails? That would seem to be the best way to deal with this "growing" problem, without imposing ridiculous demands.

This is a topic that is deeply important and provocative in society today. Unfortunately, passion overrules the mind and we’re not thinking about the most effective and efficient ways to deal with this, just the most sensationalist.

For more on my (generally unpopular) views on Megan’s Law, click here.

Via Crimlaw & CrimProf: A bill proposed by Rep. Daniel Lungren of California and Sen. Jon Kyl
of Arizona would strip the federal courts of much of their power to
decide whether death row inmates have been given a fair trial and could
result in the execution of innocent defendants.

The bill, pushed by Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Calif.) in the House and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in the Senate, would impose onerous new procedural hurdles on inmates seeking federal review — those, that is, whom it doesn’t bar from court altogether. It would bar the courts from considering key issues raised by those cases and insulate most capital sentencing from federal scrutiny. It also would dictate arbitrary timetables for federal appeals courts to resolve habeas cases. This would be a dramatic change in federal law — and entirely for the worse.

Sadly (and funnily), the bill is entitled "The Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005". Yep, let’s streamline their lives right out of here.

Blondie comments on this WaPo article that Six Flags is now attempting to exclude sex offenders from their parks by including the following language on the back of their tickets:

the amusement park reserves the right to refuse entry to anyone
convicted of a sex crime or required to register as a sex offender.

What? After Miami’s asinine ordinances and Florida’s proposed legislation, this shouldn’t strike anyone as surprising, but it is just plain ridiculous. Blondie explores Six Flag’s idea in detail. She writes:

This brings so many thoughts to mind. First, how to they plan to
enforce this ban? It is unlikely that Six Flags will be conducting
background checks at the gates. Most likely, the only guests that Six
Flags will be check are season ticket applicants (since these
applicants have to supply their name and it may be possible to do a
background check in the time it takes to complete the season pass
application process, which typically includes a photograph and other
identity verification). But, would it be possible to do background
checks at the gates? Possibly. This would require asking every guest
for identification, and using their name (and possibly other
identifying information such as address or social security number) to
log onto the state’s sex offender registry or call into the registry.
This would still allow some people who have been convicted of sex
offenses or sex offenders entry since (1) the person may be registered
in another state or not currently registered or (2) the person may have
been convicted of a "sex crime" but not required to register or not
required to register at a level that makes his or her name available on
the internet or by phone.

So who else should do this? Who else should ban sex offenders?

In the meantime, who else could (or should) ban sex offenders ban? The
most obvious idea that comes to mind is internet service providers.
They’d have the means to do a check because subscribers give their
names and credit info, they could easily add language to their terms of
service that makes it a violation to allow a sex offender to use your
account, and I cannot think of a better advertisement for an ISP than
"Now Sex Offender Free!" But, who else? Let’s think of the non-obvious.
What about car dealerships selling vans? Shouldn’t they ban the sale of
vans to sex offenders (since, according to the nightly news, this is
what sex offenders so often use to pick up their victims)? Come to
think of it, that might also be a good defendant to add for all of
those victims’ parents filing lawsuits against the police and their
city…

I will refrain from writing anything myself, because it will only descend into cursing, name-calling and general destructive mayhem.

Suffice it to say that I am extremely annoyed and generally frustrated at these lame efforts made at the wrong end of the problem.

The topic du jour seems to be whether to blog from work. Ambimb, after receiving numerous comments saying he should avoid it, is still unsure. Keep blogging, I try to convince him. Just don’t talk about anything specific before it becomes public record. So, don’t talk about a case you’re working on until you’ve had the trial - or filed the motion - or better yet, wait till the appellate decision. Instead, write about areas of law, legal decisions, proposed legislation, your views on certain statutes, dumb criminals, dumb clients, dumb lawyers. There’s plenty of fodder to go around. Don’t give up blogging because of it!

Also, I’ve stumbled upon what seems to be a good new blog, so I’m adding it to the list. Check out ‘On Firm Ground‘.

UPDATE: Prof. Berman correctly points out that I have neglected to discuss the economic concerns surrounding the re-instatement of the death penalty in MA. Certainly, there are many studies [pdf] out there that analyze and discuss the cost of imposing the death penalty, which I won’t rehash here. Prof. Berman does make an interesting observation:

Consider also the fact that, according to statistics I found on the
web, alomst twice as many people are killed in Massachusetts by drunk drivers than by murderers, and the data
on rape and other violent crimes suggest that Romney’s bill may
distract from more pressing criminal justice issues in Massachusetts.

This is certainly a compelling economic argument against the death penalty. Here’s what stood out to me - In CT, in 2000, there were 98 murders, 678 forcible rapes, 3832 robberies and 6450 aggravated assaults. In CT, as of 2002, it cost the PD’s office an average of $380,000 per case for the 7 men on death row, totalling $2,659,921. By comparision, those sentenced to life after being charged with the death penalty cost an average of $202,365, totalling $2,630,745. Those who weren’t charged with the death penalty, but were sentenced to life after a trial cost an average of $79,777. Full report of the CT Commission on the Death Penalty here. The 2003-2004 cost of providing capital defense in CT was $1,959,523. That’s a lot of money that could be saved.

Original Post: Thanks to Injustice Anywhere, I just read this NYT article about MA seeking to reinstate the death penalty (well, it’s mostly the Governor). Gov. Romney calls it, rather unabashedly, as foolproof as humanly possible. Here are a few of his proposed features:

1. It would require that there be "conclusive scientific evidence," like DNA or fingerprints, to link a defendant to a crime.
2. It would allow a death penalty to be imposed only if a sentencing jury
   finds there is "no doubt" about a defendant’s guilt, a standard that is
   stricter than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
3. It would restrict capital punishment to murders involving terrorism, prolonged torture, multiple killings or murder of someone involved in the criminal justice system.
4. Defendants who had previously been convicted of first-degree murder or
   were serving life sentences without parole would also be eligible.
5. Another unprecedented provision would give the defendant the option of
   having two juries - one for the trial and one for the sentencing.
6. It also includes a requirement that defendants get at least two and
   possibly three lawyers, that scientific evidence be examined by a
   review board, that every death sentence be reviewed by the state’s
   highest court, and that a special panel be set up to handle complaints.

Romney calls it a model for the entire nation. Heh. RIght off the bat, I see good things and bad things about this proposed legislation.

The Good:
The requirement that there be atleast two lawyers for a capital defendant. Everyone who follows capital litigation knows that there is a terrible need to skilled and experienced lawyers and that one lawyer simply cannot adequately represent a capital defendant. By mandating that there be two, perhaps three, the bill is providing for effective representation.

Also, at first glance, the requirement that there be two juries is interesting and has potential to be a good provision. When there is one jury, it is difficult to plead not guilty - go through a trial, present (usually) horrific evidence and get convicted - and then turn around at sentencing and provide mitigating circumstances to that same jury. Perhaps the requirement that the sentencing jury be new and look at the aggravating and mitigating factors with untainted eyes might provide a better process.

Finally, the DNA evidence. Over the years, the stories of those who have been exonerated based on DNA evidence is growing. To see a bill that has DNA evidence built in to the process that triggers the death penalty is uplifting. I’m not sure what the "review board" is that is supposed to review scientific evidence, or who it will be composed of, so I’m not going to comment on that.

The Questionable:
The requirement that death be found "beyond all doubt" instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. If my memory serves me correctly, Illinois has attempted to introduce similar legislation. I’d love to see it pass, but somehow I don’t think it will.

The Bad:
Finally, we come to the problem with this bill. Point 4. above. Defendants who have previously been convicted of first-degree murder and are serving life without parole would be eligible. Huh? Perhaps Gov. Romney should be reminded of a little clause called the Ex-Post Facto clause [Article I, Section 9]. Why would he even consider putting that in? Doesn’t he have lawyers working on this with him? Why wouldn’t they tell him?

Anyway, it certainly is an interesting bill. Let’s see where this goes. Also, Prof. Berman at SL & P has a roundup of other death penalty news in the country.

Ok, here’s the disclaimer, front and center: I’m probably going to say things in this post that most may not agree with, so if you’re not in the mood for a disagreement, don’t read.

Ok? Still here? You’ve been warned.

At PrawsBlawg (& Crimprof), I saw reports of a story that Miami is considering changing it’s sex offender laws (via zoning restrictions) that would basically drive all "sex offenders" out of the city. These restrictions are prompted by the slayings of two young girls.

New proposed laws in Florida include lifetime monitoring of some sex offenders by global satellite
positioning systems, mandatory 25-year prison terms for sex offenses
against children younger than 12, and automatic jailing of sex
offenders who violate probation until a judge can determine whether
they represent a threat.
 

I’ll address those proposed laws a little later. The Mayor’s measure

would more than double the buffer zone required between the homes of
registered sex offenders and schools, parks, school bus stops or any
”place where children regularly congregate."

I have some serious, serious reservations about this. It is one thing to impose lengthy sentences on "sex offenders" and then require them to register for life with their information available on a public website (which, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has held constitutional), but it is quite another to effectively bar them from a whole city. Not only does this proposed legislation raise equal protection concerns, it is exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction that has effectively removed all notion of "correction" and "rehabilitation" from the criminal justice system.

Look, I know what you’re thinking: What the hell is wrong with this guy? I understand the importance of sex offender laws and the need to protect children. I am all for it. So, if sentences for certain sexual offenses need to be increased to keep "offenders" locked up longer and out of society longer - I’m all for it. But when we start getting to the point that "offenders" cannot live within a city then we really need to stop and think about what we’re doing.

Analogizing (and yes, you can analogize this situation to other crimes - because there is always a victim) this to say, robbery, why are we not passing ordinances, zoning laws and legislation that bars people convicted of two or more robberies from being within 1500 feet of a store? Experience in the criminal defense field will tell you that the most recidivist "criminals" are those with robberies, burglaries and assaults on their record. So let’s keep people convicted of assaults from within 1500 feet of any store where they can purchase a knife/gun/sharp instrument. In fact, let’s not even let them near kitchens!

See how absurd this is getting? If you want to effectively "ban" them from cities, just increase jail terms. That serves the same purpose.

The other problem is that not all sex offenders are convicted of Class A or Class B felonies. There are a large number of "sex offenders" who are convicted of offenses that involve nothing more than public indecency or, heck, don’t even involve children! Do we banish them too?

So we banish them. Then what? They go live in another city, or the countryside, or some small town. And that small town passes the same law and so they move elsewhere and so on and so on. What happens then? All the sex offenders in the country congregate in some remote vast open space in the middle of nowhere in, say, Montana? You think the residents of Montana will have nothing to say about that? That’s not a risk?

What about people that were convicted of a sexual offense 20 years ago and have not a blemish on their record since? What about those that are now working and hold jobs and have families? Do we banish the families too?

Again, I’m not belittling the horrific murders of the two young girls. But banishing all sex offenders is not the answer.

Let’s talk a little about this global positioning system tracking that’s been proposed. Do we need to know where "sex offenders" are every single minute of the rest of their lives? If we’re that concerned about where they are - leave them in jail!

All right. Here’s the deal: All I’m saying is that the "remedy" here is excessive and we really need to stop and think before we take such drastic measures. Is there a better alternative? One that is selective and targets only those that pose a real risk to the community and the safety of little children.

I told you my rant would piss you off.

On the House calendar for today is House Bill No. 6012 entitled "An Act Concerning Murder with Special Circumstances". This is the anti-death penalty legislation that received a 25-15 vote in the Judiciary Committee last week. The text of the bill is available here. The proposed bill itself is long and has many amendments, which I will explain briefly. The most important provisions of this bill are Sections 1 through 6. Section 1 provides

Notwithstanding any other provision of law including, but not limited to, subsections (t) and (u) of section 1-1, section 54-130a and section 54-194 of the general statutes, (1) the sentence of any person convicted of a capital felony and sentenced prior to the effective date of this section to a sentence of death in accordance with section 53a-46a of the general statutes in effect prior to the effective date of this section is commuted to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, as defined in section 53a-35b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, on the effective date of this section, and (2) the punishment or penalty for any person who (A) is convicted prior to, on or after the effective date of this section of a capital felony committed prior to the effective date of this section, and (B) is sentenced or resentenced on or after the effective date of this section, shall be a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, as defined in section 53a-35b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, if such offense was committed on or after October 1, 1985, and a sentence of life imprisonment, as defined in section 53a-35b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, if such offense was committed prior to October 1, 1985. For the purposes of this section, "capital felony" means a violation of section 53a-54b of the general statutes in effect prior to the effective date of this section.

What this section essentially states is that all sentences of death, imposed before, on or after the effective date of this statute shall be changed to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

Section 2 replaces the term capital felony with murder with special circumstances in CGS 53a-54b, which enumerates the crimes for which the death penalty is available. [Murder of a police officer and the like, murder during kidnapping, murder for hire, second murder by someone already convicted of murder, murder of two or more persons in the same act or same time, murder during sexual assault 1st and murder of someone under the age of 16].

Section 3 makes changes to CGS 53a-35a, which deals with terms of imprisonment and makes murder with special circumstances a Class A felony. It does not change general "murder", which is also a Class A felony with a term of 25-life.

Section 4 defines the term of imprisonment for someone convicted of murder with special circumstances.

Sec. 4. Section 53a-35b of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

[A] For the purposes of this title and titles 51 and 54, (1) a sentence of [imprisonment for life shall mean] life imprisonment means a definite sentence of sixty years, [unless the] and (2) a sentence [is] of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, imposed pursuant to [subsection (g) of section 53a-46a, in which case the sentence shall be] subdivision (1) of section 53a-35a, as amended by this act, means imprisonment for the remainder of the defendant’s natural life without the possibility of parole, sentence reduction, temporary leave, furlough or any other kind of post-conviction conditional or absolute release.

The proposed legislation changes little except the term for felony murder and the penalty for such a crime.

This bill has 22 co-sponsors.

Please post your comments on this legislation below.

[Ed Note: The text in [] is deleted and the underlined text is added. Section 1 above is a brand new section to be added to the CGS.]