- Special Reports
- Maps & Data
- Election 2014
- Dear Abby
- Games & Puzzles
- Events & Exhibits
- Food & Drink
- Arts & Music
- Movies & TV
Inmates serving lengthy prison sentences for crimes they committed as children may be released much sooner than expected, as the House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that would make dozens of inmates eligible for parole as soon as this fall.
One of those inmates is William Freeman Jr., who has been incarcerated for the last 33 years for his involvement in a murder in New Haven County when he was 15.
If the bill becomes law, 170 inmates who are serving time for offenses they committed as juveniles would be eligible for parole after they served 60 percent of their time. For Ackeem Riley, who at 17 was involved in a gang-related drive-by shooting in Hartford, it means he would be eligible for parole at age 47 instead of age 117.
"By no means is this an automatic release. It's the opportunity for a second look at their sentence," said Rep. Gerald M. Fox III, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee.
The 137-4 vote is the House's reaction to a trio of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court restricting state lawmakers from requiring mandatory life sentences without the chance of parole for juveniles. The proposal to offer parole to those sentenced to 20 years or more was crafted by the state's Sentencing Commission, a diverse panel that includes the state's top prosecutor.
Calling the proposal "balanced," Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane said it is "creating a vehicle to justly determine whether someone may be released from confinement and provides the authority to appropriately restrict and supervise those who may be released."
Most inmates convicted of nonviolent offenses who come before the state's parole board are granted parole, said John DeFeo, executive director of the Board of Pardon and Parole. But it's unclear what would be the fate of juveniles convicted of serious offenses, such as murder and sexual assault.
"These cases have never come before the board before. I don't know how they will react," DeFeo said of the panel members. "It's a different population then we are used to looking at."
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that because juveniles are prone to impulsive behavior and are less able to understand the full impact of their actions, mandatory life sentences for children convicted of murder is cruel and unusual punishment.
Anthony Luther, whose son was sentenced to 20 years for a sexual assault he committed at age 15, knows this all too well. "He was driven by hormones, not his brain," Luther told lawmakers during a public hearing in March.
But some think this initiative sends the wrong message to criminals and that the effort oversteps what the court decisions require. The decision bars state laws from requiring judges to sentence juveniles convicted of murder to life without parole.
In Connecticut, nine juvenile offenders are serving life without the chance of parole. Nationwide, there are 2,589, according to Human Rights Watch.
"This is not the time to be doing this," Rep. Frank Nicastro, D-Bristol, said. "Giving them the opportunity for parole sends the wrong message. Tough times require tough dealings."
Others to vote no were Reps. Catherine Abercrombie and Emil Altobello, both Democrats from Meriden, and Tim Ackert, R-Coventry.
The idea of such a change upsets John Cluny, whose wife and son were murdered in the early 1990s by their 15-year-old neighbor in Norwich.
"I have strong feelings he should be executed, or at least spend his life in prison, not release him," Cluny said.
But Joseph Shortall, leader of the Sentencing Commission and a Superior Court judge, said the proposal strikes the right balance. If the General Assembly decides not to act, then the courts undoubtedly will, he said.
"It will be a litigation free-for-all. (Lawmakers) are avoiding a long period of litigation by doing what's right and appropriate now," he said.
Heather Wood, the public defender for Riley, is closely watching the legislature. Wood said the Connecticut Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of the Hartford teen serving 100 years for the drive-by shooting, but she is eager to see whether lawmakers work it out first.
Ahead of the pack
If the bill becomes law, Connecticut would become the fifth state to legislate in reaction to the high court decision last spring barring mandatory life sentences for murder, reports the National Conference of State Legislatures.
California and Wyoming both have changed their laws to require that inmates be offered the opportunity for parole after serving part of their sentences. South Dakota, Pennsylvania and North Carolina replaced the mandatory life sentences with discretion for the judges at the time of sentencing.
Sarah Brown, the director of the criminal justice project at NCSL, a national non-partisan think tank, said that since the legislation in Connecticut would impact anyone serving lengthy sentences, and not just those serving life, "That's more progressive. It looks like Connecticut took a step further."
The bill heads to the Senate, where it is expected to be taken up before the legislative session adjourns in two weeks. Asked last week about the bill, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said he has not formed an opinion.
This story originally appeared at CTMirror.org, the website of The Connecticut Mirror, an independent, nonprofit news organization covering government, politics and public policy in the state.