HARTFORD — While the state’s 2021 legalization of adult-use cannabis cleared the criminal records of thousands of people, as many as 1,200 others should have their Connecticut cases reviewed and their incarceration or probationary periods modified or terminated, advocates told the legislative Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
But Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin told the committee that a new law is not necessary because current law allows people to seek the dismissal of charges.
Sarah Gersten, executive director and general counsel of the cannabis-advocacy Last Prisoner Project, speaking in favor of a bill that would create a new process for sentence modifications, said that while state prosecutors have dropped charges on more than 1,500 cases, more should be done.
“This piece of legislation is clearly in the interest of justice and fairness,” Gersten told the law-writing committee, stressing the need for both the Correction and Judicial departments to better identify eligible individuals now incarcerated or serving probation from which they should be freed.
Gersten said that the Department of Correction recently provided her organization with data indicating that there are 476 incarcerated people that should be eligible for reconsideration; 682 individuals with eligible co-mingled offenses such as money-laundering in the case of illegal cannabis sales; and 107 others awaiting sentencing for an eligible offense.
“Let that sink in: there are more than 1,200 people who continue to bear the consequences, some even currently incarcerated, for the same activities we now tax, regulate, and make a profit off of. Requiring courts to reconsider cannabis-related sentences since prohibition’s repeal is a critical piece of legalizing the right way, with accountability to the origins of prohibition. It is a data-driven policy supported by a wide body of research showing that reconsidering outdated sentences promotes public safety.”
In an interview in the Legislative Office Building after her testimony, Gersten said the terms of sentence modification are too narrow. “Anytime you have a petition-based process people don’t utililize it,” Gersten said. “They might not know that they are eligible. They might not have the resources to petition.” She said that of the 682 with combined charges — possession of cannabis with other criminal counts — it could result in less time in prison. “You might not be released from prison because you had a more-serious charge, but it would reduce it. If they tacked on another year for cannabis possession, that year would go away.”
State Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport and committee co-chairman, said he wanted to explore the new statistics. “I do think we want to drill down on those a little bit because those numbers are a little different from the ones I’ve seen,” he told Gersten. He noted Griffin’s testimony, and the reaction of state prosecutors last year when about 4,250 cannabis possession cases were reviewed and charges dropped on more than 1,500 of them.
“I do take the chief state’s attorney’s word on this issue because I do think he’s a straight shooter, so to speak,” Stafstrom said, noting that Griffin claims the existing process is adequate. Stafstrom said those incarcerated people might have other, more serious offenses as the main reason for why they’re in prison.
Griffin, in written testimony to the committee, said the May 2023 case review actually resulted in the state dropping 1,741 cannabis charges.
“At the present time, it is not entirely clear to the division that there exists a group of defendants to whom the proposed law would apply,” Griffin wrote. “Broadly speaking, the division is not opposed to the spirit of the bill to the extent that its goal is to provide for a process to dismiss charges and discharge sentences associated with certain cannabis-related conduct.”
Gersten noted that the current sentence-modification process is narrow in terms of eligibility. “You have to have served seven years and it has to be the result of a plea deal, so, of course there likely are many individuals who are serving sentences for activities we have now legalized, that wouldn’t meet that criteria. There are many states that have implemented this kind of law. Petition-based processes simply don’t work. People don’t take advantage of those laws. It needs to be initiated by the state to truly have an impact and make sure that no one is falling through the cracks.”
H/T: www.stamfordadvocate.com
Read The Whole Article By Clicking Here
