You asked for information about Connecticut legislative sentencing commissions, including the authorizing legislation, the people who served on the commissions, and what actions the commissions took.

SUMMARY

The General Assembly authorized three commissions to study sentencing guidelines in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Each published a report to the legislature that is available in the Legislative Library. Their respective memberships, purposes, and conclusions are summarized below.

LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION TO STUDY ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF SENTENCING CRIMINALS (1976)

Sentencing reform was a central issue during the 1976 and 1977 sessions, with over one hundred bills proposed to alter the state's system. Rather than approve these piecemeal measures, the Legislature decided to create a commission that would study alternative sentencing methods and propose a more comprehensive approach to reforming the sentencing process (see SA 76-82 (Attachment A)). In 1977, the Legislature expanded the commission's membership and scope, and required it to report in October 1977 (see SA 77-16 (Attachment B)).

The commission's mandate was to examine the Connecticut criminal sentencing system determine its strengths and weaknesses, examine alternative forms of sentencing, and make legislative and policy recommendations for the 1978 General Assembly (see Report to the Legislature: Legislative Commission to Study Alternative Methods of Sentencing Criminals (Oct. 1977) (Attachment C)).

The commission had twelve members, and met weekly for ten months. It was chaired by attorney Thomas C. Clark. Other members included Charles F. Corcoran (attorney), Brian L. Hollander (President, Hartford Institute of Criminal and Social Justice), William J. Lawless, Jr. (Assistant Majority Leader of the House of Representatives), Commissioner John R. Manson (Connecticut Department of Corrections), Judge Henry J. Naruk (Superior Court), Lieutenant James Smith (Connecticut State Police), Charles Thompson (prosecutor), and Richard D. Tulisano (state representative).

The commission decided that sentencing grids were a fairer way of sentencing criminals than the existing “indeterminate” sentencing program. Under the indeterminate system, judges were required to set both a minimum and maximum term of incarceration. An administrative board, such as the parole board, then determined the moment, within the limits set by the judge, when the offender should be released from prison.

The commission also favored sentencing grids over “flat” mandatory minimum sentences, which could deny judicial discretion and result in unduly harsh sentences.

From these conclusions, the commission produced HB 5987 (1978), a bill calling for the use of sentencing grids (see Attachment D). The bill permitted judges to go outside the guideline range where compelling reasons were found and stated in writing. The bill passed the House and Senate in somewhat different forms, and because these differences could not be resolved in the short time remaining in the session, the legislation did not pass.

LEGISLATIVE SENTENCING COMMISSION (1979)

Following the failure of HB 5987 in 1978, the 1979 General Assembly created a new commission to draft a sentencing grid and to develop an enhanced system of appellate review to help standardize sentencing practices in the state (see SA 79-96 (Attachment E)).

The commission had thirteen members, and was chaired by William H. Carbone. Members included attorneys James F. Bingham, John F. Fallon, Austin J. McGuigan, Richard P. Nevins, Robert Satti, Joseph M. Shortall, and James A. Wade. Members also included Stephen J. Michaels, Professor Howard Sacks, and Judges John J. Daly, John R. Manson, and Robert J. Testo.

Despite its mandate to create a sentencing grid, the commission decided not to recommend such a strict framework for sentencing, finding it excessive and unworkable. Instead it urged an “evolutionary” process that would include a determinative sentencing system and a reform of the parole system (see Final Report of the Legislative Sentencing Commission, 35 (March 12, 1980) (Attachment F)).

Following the commission's report, the General Assembly passed PA 80-442, An Act Revising the Sentencing Laws, “to provide a graduated series of just, consistent penalties, based upon the severities of both the offender's prior criminal record and conviction offense” (see Attachment G). This act created a determinative sentencing structure, requiring judges to sentence convicted felons to a single term of years, rather than a minimum-maximum range. The act also eliminated parole release and supervision, and reduced the amount of “good time” that prisoners could earn for sentences over five years.

LEGISLATIVE SENTENCING COMMISSION (1984)

The 1984 General Assembly created the Legislative Sentencing Commission in response to criticism of the sentencing rules promulgated by PA 80-442, which had become effective in 1981. Some legislators were concerned that these tougher rules were increasing the number of low-level offenders in jail and leading to prison overcrowding. The authorizing legislation for the new commission was SA 84-55 (see Attachment H).

The purpose of the commission was two-fold. First, it would collect data necessary to determine what range of sentences resulted from each crime, and what factors led this divergence. Second, it would evaluate other sentencing models to determine if Connecticut should adopt a guidelines approach to sentencing.

Unlike previous commissions composed largely of practitioners and experts, this commission had fourteen members, all of whom were legislators. According to the commission's 1985 report, this arrangement proved problematic after the 1984 elections: a number of commission members lost their seats, and the new legislative leadership was not interested in pursuing the goals of the commission (see Report of Legislative Sentencing Commission, 10 (Jan 2, 1985) (Attachment I)). The commission recommended that it be disbanded in the 1985 Session.

AW: ro