• Connecticut Lags Behind in Death Penalty Reforms The Chair of Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee has called for enact­ment of death penal­ty reforms to pro­tect against wrong­ful con­vic­tions. Of the six reforms rec­om­mend­ed after a 13-month spe­cial com­mis­sion on Connecticut’s death penal­ty, only one has been enact­ed. Members of the com­mis­sion not­ed, Experiences in oth­er states through­out the coun­try sug­gest that Connecticut can­not be com­pla­cent and best prac­tices’ should be the watch­word.” Among the rec­om­men­da­tions are video tap­ing of inter­ro­ga­tions, a blind and sequen­tial wit­ness ID process to reduce false iden­ti­fi­ca­tions, pre-tri­al hear­ings to eval­u­ate the valid­i­ty of jail house snitch tes­ti­mo­ny, improved access to DNA test­ing, and an open file” pol­i­cy for pros­e­cu­tors in cap­i­tal cas­es. Rep. Michael Lawlor, Judiciary Co-chair, said that there have been no exe­cu­tions in Connecticut because nobody real­ly wants to do it.” (New Haven Advocate, January 15, 2004) See New Voices.
  • Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland signed a bill to pro­hib­it the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty on a defen­dant who suf­fers from men­tal retar­da­tion. The bill, signed on July 6, 2001, also pro­vides for a study of the state’s death penal­ty*, which will exam­ine whether there are dis­par­i­ties in pros­e­cu­tors’ deci­sions to seek the death penal­ty based on a defen­dan­t’s or vic­tim’s race or eco­nom­ic sta­tus. The bill also expands the death penal­ty, makes killing in an attempt to avoid arrest or to stop the vic­tim from car­ry­ing out his or her offi­cial duties an aggra­vat­ing fac­tor in deter­min­ing whether to sen­tence a defen­dant to death.
  • On January 8, 2003, the Report of the Connecticut Commission on the Death Penalty was sub­mit­ted to the Connecticut General Assembly. Read the report.