ACLU of ConnecticutKonto zweryfikowane

The Chief State's Attorney is testifying in the Judiciary Committee now, opposing SB 1018. Let's do some fact checking.

It's unfortunate that prosecutors are resorting to misinformation about SB1018 to oppose it. The bill mandates standard rules for fairness & anti-discrimination in parts of a case where prosecutors have discretion. *Something they're already supposed to be doing under state law.*

SB 1018 would mandate which parts of a case must have rules, as opposed to just the fact that some rules must exist. This would create guardrails to prevent prosecutors from deviating into harsh over-sentencing & discrimination, but still allow flexibility.

Connecticut's prosecutorial system, in which prosecutors are required to have rules but set 13 different standards across 13 different judicial districts, each according to the local state's attorney's whim, is a recipe for disparities. Fairness shouldn't depend on zip code.

The Chief State's Attorney's testimony against SB 1018 falsely claims that data from the state's prosecutorial transparency law isn't out. In fact, some is. And it suggests that treatment in Connecticut’s criminal legal system still largely depends on one’s zip code.

Let's be real: Connecticut's decrease in incarceration in 2020 was mostly due to fewer people entering the system, including bc of a decrease in arrests. Experts have long known that prosecutors are major drivers of mass incarceration, and ...

2020 showed that prosecutors can *decrease* incarceration if they have the will or circumstances to do so. But Connecticut needs a system to make that happen, because we don't have one now to prevent prosecutorial-driven incarceration from going right back up after COVID.

.@Gary4CT is correct: the division of criminal justice opposed the 2019 prosecutorial transparency bill and played politics with its fiscal note. The division cried wolf then, and they are crying wolf now.