Connecticut lawmakers are again considering a proposed law that would grant incarcerated survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking or trafficking the ability to seek a sentence reduction if violence or abuse suffered by such survivors was a contributing factor influencing them to commit an offense.
A similar bill was introduced last year but failed to pass the legislature.
Megan Scanlon, chief executive officer of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, told the Courant she hopes the bill can “create a more trauma-informed sentencing framework for survivors of gender-based violence within Connecticut’s criminal justice system.
“Connecticut has over 70 crimes that carry mandatory minimums regardless of the circumstances of the crime that was committed,” Scanlon said. “That in itself requires the court to minimize or negate the role abuse plays in a survivor’s offense. It restricts judicial discretion and silences survivor experiences.”
Scanlon said HB 5306 is in line with recent changes to the Connecticut Human Trafficking statute.
“We better understand the control and coercion that victims of human trafficking face and updated our laws to reflect that,” she said.
HB 5306 includes language to simplify the process for the board of pardons and parole for incarcerated survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking and trafficking, Scanlon said.
She added that the proposed law also reflects the impact of trauma and distrust of a “system that has criminalized acts of survival.”
“We are not re-adjudicating the guilt or innocence of anyone applying for this,” Scanlon said. “They committed the crimes. We understand that. It is acknowledging the dynamics of power and control that occur in gender-based violence to coerce individuals into committing those crimes.”
Lisa Angelo, Connecticut’s deputy chief state’s attorney wrote testimony in opposition to the bill.
“In short, the information this bill seeks to allow a defendant to present in front of a sentencing court already can be put in front of a sentencing court under existing law and rules of practice,” Angelo wrote in her testimony.
Further, Angelo wrote that the sentence reductions in Section 1 of the bill appear to “be arbitrarily selected and lack a thorough analysis of their implications.
“For instance, reducing a life sentence to thirty years or less based solely on the defendant’s status as a survivor does not align with the principles of proportionality in sentencing,” Angelo wrote. “Such reductions may undermine the seriousness of certain crimes and fail to account for the broader context of victims’ rights and public safety.”
Michele May also took issue with the bill in her written testimony.
“This bill’s expansion of post-conviction relief—allowing petitions for sentence modifications based on abuse histories—invites systemic abuse through unverifiable claims, dilutes deterrence against criminal acts, and disrespects the victims of those crimes, prioritizing one form of suffering over another in a zero-sum distortion of equity that contradicts our Republic’s foundational pillars of individual responsibility, equal justice under law, and protection for all innocents,” May wrote.
New York, Oklahoma, Georgia, New Jersey and Illinois have passed similar laws to HB 5306.
Kate Mogulescu, professor of clinical law and director of the Criminal Defense & Advocacy Clinic at Brooklyn law school, told the Judiciary Committee at a public hearing on the bill Monday that New York passed a similar law in 2019 and that such laws are “critical for survivors of domestic violence who have been prosecuted and punished.”
“This law simply makes clear that domestic violence can contribute to a criminal offense and therefore should be taken into consideration in sentencing and other important contexts,” she said. “We know so far in the seven years of New York law and all of the dire predictions that our district attorneys association offered why this bill should not pass have not come to fruition.”
State Rep. Craig C. Fishbein, R-Wallingford, a top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, questioned the bill, raising concerns.
He asked Mogulescu to clarify the concept of the bill.
“So, I guess if we were to set up a second tier system we would look to prevent double dipping, a court would be barred from considering domestic violence in sentencing but employ this law instead?” Fishbein said.
“I am not sure where the double dipping might occur,” Mogulescu said. “What we know is that far too often the circumstance of someone’s experience with domestic violence is not surfaced at the times we deem appropriate. Maybe to the police upon first arrest. During an initial prosecution a lot of this hinges upon a survivor’s ability to identify what they are experiencing as domestic violence, sexual assault or human trafficking but also to be able to disclose to a lawyer, to their legal team, in their court room.”
Mogulescu said, “many survivors are prosecuted alongside the people that abused them, rendering that scenario very unlikely and in too many instances there are too many defense attorneys that simply do not know to ask these questions. We have more of an issue making sure we have eligible survivors than taking advantage of a sentencing reform.”
In response, Fishbein said “any defense attorney that doesn’t ask their client why they did something especially in the face of domestic violence I question whether or not they should be a defense attorney.”
He then questioned how a “gang member, a young man who is coerced, threatened to commit a heinous criminal act, the same criminal act” addressed here would receive a different sentencing.
“How do you justify that?” he said.
“So this bill is limited to people who have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault or human trafficking,” she said. “We may want to consider sentencing alternatives in other scenarios where coercion is present.”
“You have just pointed out the fallacy with this situation,” Fishbein said. “They are expressly barred from this relief. You are creating a protected class. This legislation creates a sentencing structure just for that particular class for whatever reason. I am very sympathetic to victims of domestic violence. Two similar situated individuals, both coerced to commit a murder have a different sentencing structure. You have some significant issues here.”
Mogulescu said “they have not hampered our efforts in New York.”