Connecticut Sentencing Task Force

1. Connecticut Sentencing Task Force Presentation by: Robert Farr, Chair Andrew Clark, Member

2. Description • The Connecticut Sentencing Task Force was created upon passage of Public Act 06-193 - An Act Concerning Criminal Justice Policy and Planning and the Establishment of a Sentencing Task Force. • The primary purpose of the CT Sentencing Task Force is to review criminal justice and sentencing policies and laws of this state for the purpose of creating a more just, effective and efficient system of criminal sentencing.

3. Task Force Statutory Composition • (Effective July 1, 2006) (a) There is established a Connecticut Sentencing Task Force to review criminal justice and sentencing policies and laws of this state for the purpose of creating a more just, effective and efficient system of criminal sentencing. • (b) The task force shall be composed of the following members: • (1) The chairpersons and ranking members of the joint standing committee of the General Assembly on the judiciary; • (2) Two judges of the superior court, each of whom shall have been a judge for at least ten years and have at least five years experience presiding over cases in judicial district criminal courts, appointed by the Chief Court Administrator; • (3) Two state's attorneys each of whom shall have at least ten years experience as a prosecuting attorney and at least five years experience prosecuting cases in judicial district criminal courts, appointed by the Chief State's Attorney; • (4) Two public defenders each of whom shall have at least ten years experience as a public defender and at least five years experience representing defendants in judicial district criminal courts, appointed by the Chief Public Defender; • (5) Two criminal defense lawyers each of whom shall have at least fifteen years experience representing defendants in criminal cases, one of whom shall be appointed by the criminal justice section of the Connecticut Bar Association and one of whom shall be appointed by the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association; • (6) The executive director of the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch or the executive director's designee; • (7) The Commissioner of Correction or the commissioner's designee; • (8) The Chairperson of the Board of Pardons and Paroles or the chairperson's designee; • (9) The Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services or the commissioner's designee; • (10) The Victim Advocate or the Victim Advocate's designee; • (11) The undersecretary of the Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division within the Office of Policy and Management; • (12) An assistant attorney general, appointed by the Attorney General; • (13) Three municipal police chiefs, one of whom shall represent an urban area, one of whom shall represent a suburban area and one of whom shall represent a rural area, appointed by the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association; and • (14) Six members of the General Assembly, appointed one each by the president pro tempore of the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the House of Representatives. • (c) The chairpersons of the joint standing committee of the General Assembly on the judiciary shall serve as chairpersons of the task force.

4. Appointed Members • Court Support Services Judicial Branch • Executive Director William Carbone • Department of Correction • Commissioner Theresa Lantz •       Fred Levesque • Board of Pardons and Paroles • Chairman Robert Farr • Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services • Deputy Commissioner Peter Rockholz • Office of Victim Advocate • James F. Papillo, J.D. • Office of Policy Management-Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division • Brian Austin • Attorney General’s Office • Associate Attorney General Joe Rubin • Connecticut Police Chief Association Appointments: • Urban • Chief Brian Norwood • Bridgeport Police Department • Suburban • Chief Eugene Marcucci • Woodbridge Police Department • Rural • Chief Mark Palmer • Coventry Police Department • Senator Andrew McDonald • Representative Michael Lawlor • Senator John Kissel • Representative Art O’Neill • Senator Eric Coleman • Representative Jamie Spallone • Senator Martin Looney • Representative Alfred Adinolfi • Senator Andrew Roraback • Andrew Clark • ISCJ, Central CT State University • Judge Roland Fasano • JD-GA 4 Court House • Judge Patrick Clifford • JD-GA 15 Court House • Attorney David Shepack • Litchfield Judicial District • State’s Attorney Matthew C. Gedansky • Tolland Judicial District • Office of the Chief Public Defender • AttorneyBrian Carlow • New Haven Office of Public Defender • Attorney Tom Ullmann • Criminal Justice Section • Attorney Richard Brown • Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association • Attorney John Schoenhorn

5. Purpose • (1) Identify overarching criminal justice and sentencing goals and policies; • (2) Define current sentencing models including sentencing guidelines, criteria, exemptions and enhancements; • (3) Analyze sentencing trends by offense types and offender characteristics; • (4) Review the actual versus intended impact of sentencing policies; • (5) Determine the direct and indirect costs associated with sentencing policies;

6. Purpose Cont. • (6) Review the fines and terms of imprisonment specified for violations of criminal statutes that are classified or unclassified felonies or misdemeanors and make recommendations including, but not limited to: • (A) Whether crimes that are currently unclassified should be classified; • (B) Whether certain classified crimes should be reclassified or the penalties for certain unclassified crimes should be revised in order to make the penalties for similar crimes more uniform; • (C) Whether the penalty or type of penalty for certain crimes should be revised or eliminated where such penalty or type of penalty is no longer deemed necessary or appropriate or is disproportionate to the severity of the crime; and • (D) Whether crimes that are obsolete should be repealed. • (7) Make any recommendations for the revision of criminal justice and sentencing policies as deemed necessary.

7. Full Committee Meetings • December 13, 2006- Organizational Meeting • February 20, 2007- Meeting and Presentations by Barbara Tombs (VERA) and Renee Muir (Program Review) • May 7, 2007- Discussion of Direction and Plan of Action • June 11, 2007- Task Force Retreat • September 24, 2007- Recommendations from Subcommittees • November 13, 2007- Draft Interim Report

8. Sentencing Task Force Retreat • The Sentencing Task Force Retreat was held on June 11th 2007. • Prior to this first meeting, a survey was distributed to all members to get a sense of what specific areas of sentencing they would like to see the Task Force address. • The intent of this initial meeting was to identify and discuss the goals and philosophies of the Connecticut Sentencing Task Force. • This meeting was facilitated by the VERA Institute of Justice, in particular Barb Tombs, a national expert on sentencing practices. It was at this initial meeting when the four separate subcommittees were established.

9. VERA Institute of Justice- Center on Sentencing & Corrections • The Center on Sentencing and Corrections (CSC) provides non-partisan support to government officials and criminal justice professionals charged with addressing their jurisdiction's sentencing and corrections policy • Upon invitation, CSC dispatches teams of trained staff and practitioners to help officials assess their needs and develop strategies for advancing reform. • Vera staff has helped the Task force coordinate meetings and draft agendas as well as provide an understanding of sentencing policies on a national level.

10. National Association of Sentencing Commissions (NASC) The 2007 Annual Conference of the National Association of Sentencing Commissions (NASC) held August 5-7 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 4 Members of CT’s Task Force attended The conference offered attendees a variety of panel sessions and roundtables on sentencing issues. These included: • Revisiting Theories of Sentencing; • Issues in Federal Sentencing; • Post-Prison Sanctions; • Issues in Juvenile Sentencing; • Communicating Research to Policymakers; and • How Sentencing Changes After Increases in Legislated Penalties.

11. Subcommittees Created • Community Supervision & Alternative Sanctions • Offense Classification • Sentencing Structure • Disparity

12. Community Supervision & Alternative Sanctions • This subcommittee is reviewing the use of probation and parole, including length of sentences, types of individuals who are being sentenced to community supervision/alternative sanctions, and any overlap that exists. The use of conditional discharge will also be reviewed. Other areas being addressed include a review of the types of programs that are available through alternative sanctions, searching for overlap in these programs, determining whether these programs are consistent and looking for program evaluation mechanisms to determine program effectiveness. Recommendations will be made as necessary.

13. Offense Classification • This subcommittee is reviewing unclassified crimes to determine if it is plausible to classify them. They will also provide recommendations regarding crimes that are not currently being used for sentencing to prison/jail. Additionally, this subcommittee is reviewing classified crimes to determine proportionality in sentencing and will make recommendations as necessary.

14. Sentencing Structure • The Sentencing Structure subcommittee is determining how sentencing is structured in Connecticut and how we compare with other states. They are also reviewing the use of mandatory minimum sentences and will make recommendations as necessary.

15. Disparity • The Disparity subcommittee is reviewing current and proposed sentencing policies in an effort to determine intended and unintended impact on gender, racial and geographic populations in Connecticut and make recommendations as necessary

16. Subcommittees • The four Subcommittees have continued to meet regularly since the initial meeting in June Community Supervision & Alterative Sanctions June 25, 2007 July 16, 2007 August 20, 2007September 10, 2007 October 16, 2007 Offense Classification June 26, 2007 July 17, 2007 August 20, 2007 October 16, 2007 Sentencing Structure June 25, 2007 July 16, 2007 August 20, 2007 September 10, 2007 October 2, 2007 October 23, 2007 Disparity June 27, 2007 July 18, 2007 September 18, 2007 October 17, 2007

17. Next Steps Create a separate work group to solidify the mission and philosophy of the Task Force Each Subcommittee will draft and prepare recommendations to present to the legislature in an Interim Report. Determine if there is need for a permanent sentencing commission in CT.

18. Timeline • Oct/Nov/Dec – Subcommittee Meetings • November 13, 2007- Full Meeting • December 10, 2007 Interim Draft Report Due • December 17, 2007- Members comments on Draft Report Due • January 10, 2008- Final Interim Report Presented to Full Task Force • January 2008- Task Force Interim Report to Legislature • December 2008 – Final Report Due to Legislature

19. Summary • The Task Force is in the position of providing highly valued recommendations to the legislature regarding sentencing and overall criminal justice policy. • Regular meetings and presentations by criminal justice professionals has allowed the Task Force to stay abreast of state and national sentencing trends and policies. Coupled with the diverse background of Task Force members, this provides for well informed discussions, which ultimately leads to enhancedrecommendations. • Criminal Justice policy is in a constant state of flux, and is often significantly altered due to high profile events. Many well-intentioned reforms have unintended consequences. Having a standing commission to explore criminal justice policy, with special attention on sentencing policy, will help provide information aimed at regulating the intended and unintended consequences.

20. Sentencing Task Force Website:http://www.ct.gov/opm