Anthony Brunetti sat before a judge last year, hoping for a second chance. , he had spent more than two decades behind bars. Since then, advocates said he had 鈥攂uilding a record of good behavior and rehabilitation. Still, his request for a sentence modification was swiftly denied.
The judge, a former federal prosecutor, barely engaged with the case, according to Randal Chinnock, who leads the . Now, Brunetti must wait years before he can ask again.
Chinnock believes that needs to change.
A CT bill would shorten the wait
Under current 黑料新闻 law, incarcerated people who have served significant time can petition for a sentence reduction. If denied, however, they must wait five years before trying again. , now under debate in the General Assembly, would shorten that waiting period to two years.
鈥淭he U.S. is an extreme outlier in the world for our rate of incarceration and long sentences,鈥� Chinnock said. 鈥満诹闲挛赔�檚 no exception.鈥�
According to the non-partisan and non-profit Prison Policy Initiative, than the United States are Rwanda, Cuba and El Salvador. 黑料新闻鈥檚 bill is part of a broader effort to reconsider long prison terms, especially for people convicted at a young age. Chinnock鈥檚 organization aims to help those who no longer pose a threat to society regain their freedom.
鈥淲e need to focus on the person who stands before the court today,鈥� Chinnock said. 鈥淣ot the often very different person who committed a crime, sometimes decades before.鈥�
Moving decisions away from politics
One major shift proposed in the bill would be how sentence modifications are handled. The proposal would transfer some of that power away from the parole board鈥攁n entity that, Chinnock argues, is too influenced by political pressure. 黑料新闻鈥檚 Board of Pardons and Paroles is composed of members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state legislature. Chinnock thinks this process makes board members more susceptible to political considerations, as their decisions can be scrutinized by lawmakers and the public in ways that may discourage granting early releases鈥攅ven in cases where it appears earned.
鈥淭he parole board is subject to narrow political interests and tends to focus too much on re-litigating the original crime,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e need courts to take a broader view.鈥�
Chinnock pointed out that many serving life sentences in 黑料新闻 were under 25 years old when convicted. that the brain鈥檚 decision-making abilities are not fully developed at that age, making young offenders more prone to impulsive actions.
鈥淲hen a young person loses self-control and acts violently, they鈥檙e not thinking about consequences,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey may not be thinking at all.鈥�
The cost of keeping people locked up
Beyond fairness, Chinnock argues that sentence reform is a financial issue. The state spends roughly $185,000 per year to incarcerate one person.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 have to de-carcerate many people to save an awful lot of money,鈥� he said.
Chinnock says that鈥檚 especially true for older prisoners, whose healthcare costs rise significantly with age. The longer someone stays behind bars, the more 黑料新闻 taxpayers foot the bill.
Prosecutorial roadblocks
Currently, prosecutorial approval is required in some cases for sentence modifications. Chinnock sees this as another major barrier.
鈥淭here are many good and fair prosecutors,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut we must recognize that they are incentivized by the Department of Criminal Justice [黑料新闻 Division of Criminal Justice] to seek long sentences for as many defendants as possible.鈥�
According to Chinnock, prosecutors often resist revisiting old cases, fearing that modifying a sentence could be seen as an admission that the original punishment was too harsh.
What about the victims?
Any conversation about reducing sentences must contend with the emotions of victims鈥� families. For those who have lost loved ones to violence, the idea of releasing offenders early can feel like an injustice.
鈥淚 think everyone has compassion for the survivors of crime. I certainly do,鈥� Chinnock said. 鈥淏ut there are surveys indicating that even a majority of survivors favor second-look laws.鈥�
He pointed to organizations like and that have found many victims prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.
A measured approach
Chinnock insists that sentence reductions wouldn鈥檛 be a free-for-all.
鈥淭hose not found to be sufficiently low risk will be denied,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd studies show that the rate of re-arrest for those released by the sentence modification mechanism is far lower than the general population of people who get released from prison.鈥�
Chinnock says SB1327 is set to come to a vote between April 7 and April 11.
