Lawmakers Begin Filing Bills, Including One To Abolish the Death Penalty
by Christine Stuart | Dec 13, 2010 7:28pm
(7) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: State Capitol
The documents aren’t yet available online, but lawmakers have already started filing bills for the 2011 session.
Between the House and the Senate a total of about 20 “pre-filed” bills have been written and submitted to the House and Senate clerks offices.
Many are bills that have been submitted and defeated in previous legislative sessions.
Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield of New Haven submitted a bill to abolish the death penalty. As a freshman he submitted a similar bill in 2009 which ended up being vetoed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
“An Act Abolishing the Death Penalty” may have a different fate this year with Gov.-elect Dan Malloy who said on the campaign trail that he would sign such a bill if it made it to his desk. However, the makeup of the legislature has changed since 2009 and it’s likely the trial of Joshua Komisarjevsky will be happening as the legislature debates the bill in committee adding a new dimension to the debate.
It remains to be seen if legislative leadership will make the issue one of their priorities this year. Several issues are still up in the air as legislative leaders wait for Malloy to make his appointments.
Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney of New Haven also introduced a controversial piece of legislation, which has yet to make it to the floor of either chamber during past sessions.
This year Looney again introduced legislation that would allow children of immigrants residing in the state to pay in-state tuition rates at the states colleges and universities.
Last month, Looney announced he would be reintroducing the legislation at a Southern Connecticut State University event where Lorella Praeli, a 22-year-old originally from Peru, came “out of the shadows” to announce that she is living in the U.S. as an undocumented immigrant. Praeli said she was lucky enough to land a full ride to Quinnipiac University through a private scholarship. Otherwise, she would have had to pay three times the rate of in-state tuition at an in-state college or university.
Looney is hoping his legislation will prevent students like Praeli from paying three times the rate of in-state tuition.
In addition to the legislation introduced by Looney and Holder-Winfield a handful of other lawmakers have introduced legislation regarding a whole host of other issues such as mandating air conditioning in nursing homes, changing how the state spending cap is calculated and increasing the penalties for manslaughter with a motor vehicle.
We grouped and uploaded the bills by topic below.
Finance and Appropriations Committees
Meanwhile, CTNewsjunkie plans on uploading more legislation as it becomes available.
(7) Comments
posted by: City Hall Watch | December 14, 2010 6:27pm
I’m glad to see that Martin Looney and Gary Holder-Winfield are wasting taxpayers’ time and money with bills that are incomplete or not supported by the public, and the session has not even begun. Looney fails to calculate what financial impact his bill will cost taxpayers despite a multi-billion dollar deficit; and Holder-Winfield is again barking up a tree we don’t agree with but hey, why should that matter? He has a twisted view of justice especially in light of the Hayes conviction and the gruesome details of the Petit deaths. Right in the middle of the session, while Holder-Winfield is advocating a life of ease for people like Hayes,- we will all be following another trial in the Petit case. Meanwhile, poverty is increasing, unemployment is easily double digit, especially in the districts represented by these two legislators, and the city is broke. Well, at least we now know their priorities and it’s not us.
posted by: ... | December 14, 2010 7:49pm
I know Malloy said he would sign the abolition of the death penalty if it is brought up, but I wonder if he really will in his first year?
Even though the bill might be up, I would hope Dan will ‘suggest’ the Democratic legislators hold off until the economy gets better and deficit reduction actually occurs.
Nothing like passing a controversial policy like that right now, especially during a recession.
posted by: lothar | December 14, 2010 9:11pm
I’m all for the three bills under judiciary. Death penalty should be reformed or abolished entirely. Eyewitness ID process should have been overhauled a long time ago.
And a minimum 10 years for killing somebody while driving drunk doesn’t seem like a bad idea. Those cases are often pleaded down. Do people serve more than 7 years now?
posted by: lothar | December 14, 2010 11:01pm
CHW, you can’t be fiscally conservative and in favor of the death penalty. As it’s operated now in CT, the statute is applied unevenly from county to county and costs far more than throwing away the key. And you clearly have a strong opinion on this, so please take my criticism with a grain of salt - but the Petit cases are no excuse for a bad law. I’m for abolition or reform. I’d be comfortable trying it with a time limit on defense motions after conviction. But again, when you couple the death penalty as it exists today with the lack of consistency in law enforcement, and someone eventually gets killed by mistake. That one life will never be worth so called justice for others.
We’re probably not going to agree on the DP. But I am curious about what you think of a 10-year mandatory sentence for 2nd degree manslaughter/DUI.
posted by: hawkeye | December 15, 2010 11:57am
The laws, are all designed to make money for the lawyers, at a prohibitive taxpayer expense. That’s a reason why, the state is in a massive budget deficit.
We have too many laws. Time to scrap most of these laws, and start from scratch, but the lawyers’ wont’t allow it “as all laws, are all their money-makers!.
And they call this “our justice system!”
posted by: City Hall Watch | December 15, 2010 5:08pm
Lothar:
I am a fiscal conservative and yes, you can be and support the death penalty too. The death penalty is used so rarely in CT, in part I like to think because we are more cautious about taking somebody’s life unless justice demands it. I disagree that it is applied unevenly in CT - it certainily is in other places like Texas and Florida for example where you have elected prosecutors. Does the death penalty need some reform? Perhaps, particularly in the appeals arena. There should be some expedited process so these cases are heard on a timely basis and where the death sentence is not delayed by 15 - 20 years. My problem is with the grandstanders who have an agenda and are using data from other states to make their case here. Doing so would cost less, speed the appeals process and in the affirmed guilty cases, provide for a surety of punishment and justice. I don’t see any of this as violating the code of fiscal conservativism.