DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report 2014 STATE OF CONNECTICUT SENTENCING COMMISSION 2014 ANNUAL REPORT 185 Main Street, Room 212 New Britain, CT 06051 860-832-1853 CONNECTICUT SENTENCING COMMISSION April 8, 2015 Hon. David M. Borden Chair Undersecretary Mike Lawlor To: The Honorable Dannel P. Malloy, Governor Vice Chair The Honorable Chase T. Rogers, Chief Justice The Honorable Members of the Connecticut General Assembly Andrew Clark Acting Executive Director Leland J. Moore Research & Policy Associate Public Act No. 10-129, which created the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, requires the Commission to report to you annually upon its work and any recommendations it may have concerning sentencing statutes, policies and Website: practices. Accordingly, I submit the Commission’s report for the year 2014. www.ct.gov/opm/csc This report highlights the work of the Commission during the past year and Email: includes one proposal for consideration at the 2015 legislative session along with information regarding the activity of its committees and staff. SentencingCommission@ccsu. edu I would like to express the Commission’s gratitude to the following entities for their assistance in fulfilling our mission: the Institute for Municipal and Regional Mailing Address: Policy at Central Connecticut State University, the Civil Justice Clinic at Quinnipiac Institute for Municipal & University School of Law, and the Students and Faculty at Yale Law School. Regional Policy Central Connecticut State University, Downtown Campus Room 212 185 Main ST New Britain, CT 06051 Respectfully, David M. Borden Chair, Connecticut Sentencing Commission PREPARED BY: TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 3 PART II: THE COMMISSION Organizational Information ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Legislative Mandate ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Duties of the Commission ............................................................................................................................... 4 Composition ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Commissioners ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Committees & Working Groups.............................................................................................................................. 8 Committees ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Working Groups ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Budget .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 PART III: NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF SENTENCING COMMISSIONS Overview of Sentencing Commissions ................................................................................................................. 11 National Association of Sentencing Commissions (NASC) ................................................................................. 12 2014 Annual Conference ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Conference Highlights ................................................................................................................................. 13 PART IV: UPDATE ON 2014 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Proposals ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 PART V: THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION & ITS COMMITTEES Commission Meetings ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Certificates of Employability Program Evaluation ..................................................................................... 16 Presentations ............................................................................................................................................... 16 2014 Commission Retreat ........................................................................................................................... 16 Committee Highlights ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Steering Committee ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Committee on Sentencing Structure, Policy and Practices ........................................................................... 17 Committee on Research, Measurement and Evaluation ................................................................................ 18 Committee on Recidivism Reduction ............................................................................................................. 18 Legislative Committee ................................................................................................................................... 19 PART VI: 2015 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Reconsidering Sentences Imposed on Juveniles .................................................................................................... 20 Proposal Background .................................................................................................................................... 20 Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 20 PART VII: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 24 INSTITUTE FOR MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL POLICY (CCSU)............................................................. 25 APPENDICES A. C.G.S. § 54-300 ................................................................................................................................................. 26 B. FY 2016/2017 Proposed Budget Adjustments ................................................................................................... 29 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Statutory Designated Tasks ........................................................................................................................... 31 Similarly Situated Sentencing Commissions.................................................................................................. 32 CT Permanent Commissions ......................................................................................................................... 34 Current Appropriation .................................................................................................................................. 34 FY 2016/2017 Request................................................................................................................................... 35 C. National Sentencing Commissions ................................................................................................................... 36 D. Policy on Consensus Decision-Making ............................................................................................................ 38 E. Retreat Agenda ................................................................................................................................................. 40 F. House Bill 5221 ................................................................................................................................................ 42 G. Public Act 14-27 ................................................................................................................................................ 57 H. Senate Bill 259 .................................................................................................................................................. 66 I. Public Act 14-233 ............................................................................................................................................. 73 2 PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is organized into seven parts beginning with the Executive Summary. The second part addresses the Commission’s creation, membership, and legislative mandate. The third part examines the national landscape of Sentencing Commissions and their funding mechanisms. Part four provides an update on the Commission’s 2014 legislative proposals. Part
Load more

Recommended publications
  • View Reentry Strategy Document
    CT Reentry Collaborative Rob Hebert, Bridgeport Sue Gunderman, Hartford Dana Smith, New Britain Char Dornne Bussue, New Britain Earl Bloodworth, New Haven Donald Robinson, New Haven Kia Baird, Southeastern CT John Duca, Southeastern CT Jeremy Kosbob, Stamford Beth Hines, Waterbury Brittany Caruso, Windham Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy Andrew Clark Director Renee LaMark Muir Senior Research and Policy Analyst Mary Janicki Senior Research and Policy Analyst John Noonan Senior Budget and Policy Analyst Daryl McGraw Research and Policy Analyst The CT Reentry Collaborative would like to extend thanks to the Office of Policy and Management’s Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division for its assistance in both convening the meetings of the Reentry Strategy Workgroup and in the development of this document. We would also like to thank The Tow Foundation for generously supporting the production of this report. www.ctreentry.org www.ccsu.edu/imrp June 28, 2018 Under Secretary Mike Lawlor Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division Office of Policy and Management 450 Capitol Avenue, MS#52CJP Hartford, CT 06106-1379 Dear Undersecretary Lawlor, The leaders of the CT Reentry Collaborative would like to thank you for all the work that has been done around criminal justice reform and reentry under Governor Malloy’s administration. We feel there have been many positive changes impacting thousands of individuals who have returned home or been diverted from incarceration. Connecticut is leading the way when it comes to these reforms. With that being said, the CT Reentry Collaborative, a stakeholder in this process, is concerned about the continuity of this progress with the introduction of new executive branch administration that may be wholly unfamiliar with the current strategic objectives and strategies for reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2020
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT Results First Policy Oversight Committee Annual Report 2020 INSTITUTE FOR MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL POLICY Central Connecticut State University December 1, 2020 In 2013, the General Assembly created the Results First Policy Oversight Committee to oversee and guide the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative in Connecticut. This project started in March 2011 to apply cost-benefit analysis to state policy and budget decisions. The project staff of the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy (IMRP) at Central Connecticut State University initially worked with the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division, and the departments of Correction, Mental Health and Addiction Services, and Children and Families to implement Results First in Connecticut. Since then, the Department of Social Services has been added to the covered agencies. State law requires: (1) five specified state agencies to submit their respective program inventories annually and (2) the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy (IMRP) to publish an annual benefit- cost analyses report of programs identified in the inventories. Agencies and legislators making policy and budget decisions are encouraged to use program inventories and the resulting benefit- cost analyses to allocate resources, prioritize program offerings, and improve program effectiveness and outcomes. In 2019, three of the five required agencies submitted program inventories (the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division [JB-CSSD], the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Department of Correction [DOC]). The departments of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) and Social Services (DSS) did not. Both DMHAS and DSS have previously indicated an interest in working with IMRP to pursue this effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Gov. Malloy and Lt. Gov. Wyman Statements on Decision by Congresswoman Esty to Not Seek Re-Election
    04/02/2018 Gov. Malloy and Lt. Gov. Wyman Statements on Decision by Congresswoman Esty to Not Seek Re-Election (HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman released the following statements regarding the announcement made this afternoon by Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty that she will not seek re-election this fall: Governor Malloy said, “Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty’s decision not to run for another term is the right one. She has done important work on behalf of her constituents on gun safety, economic development, and much more. I spoke with the Congresswoman multiple times over the weekend and as recently as today, encouraging full transparency with the press and public, and also urging her to do what is in best interest of her constituents and her family. I believe she is now doing that. The truth is, too many facts about how this incident was handled fall short of appropriate standards for responsible and responsive leadership. Fostering a safe and supportive workplace culture for staff must be a guiding principle for all managers, and especially all elected officials, from local office all the way up to the President.” Lt. Governor Wyman said, “I think this is the right decision and I thank Congresswoman Esty for her many years of service to the residents of the fifth district and the State of Connecticut.” Twitter: @GovMalloyOffice Facebook: Office of Governor Dannel P. Malloy 04/02/2018 Gov. Malloy and Commissioner Klee Blast Trump Administration Decision to Weaken Tailpipe Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards (HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) Commissioner Rob Klee are criticizing a decision announced today by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2016
    ANNUAL REPORT 2016 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TABLE OF CONTENTS Message from the U.S. Attorney 3 Programs Victim Witness Assistance Program 5 Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee 7 Outreach 8 National Recognition 20 Appellate Division 22 Criminal Division 25 2016 Statistics 26 Violent Crime and Narcotics Unit 27 Strategy to Combat Opioid Epidemic 28 Heroin, Fentanyl & Opioid Cases 30 Narcotics Trafficking 35 Project Safe Neighborhood Juvenile Outreach 39 Project Safe Neighborhood Combats Gang Activity 40 Murder 42 Kidnapping, Home Invasion, Robbery 44 Firearm Offenses 46 Domestic Violence 50 Violence Reduction: Project Longevity 52 Financial Fraud and Public Corruption Unit 63 Public Corruption Task Force 64 Investor Fraud 65 Theft Embezzlement and Fraud 68 Mortgage Fraud 69 Insider Trading 71 RMBS Related Cases 72 National Security and Major Crimes Unit 75 National Security Program 76 Thefts and Transfers of U.S. Defense Technology 77 Cybercrime 80 Protection of Children and Human Trafficking 81 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 85 Identity Theft and Access Devise Fraud 86 Robbery 87 Burglary 88 Environmental Crime 89 Government Programs Fraud 90 Theft, Embezzlement & Fraud 92 Extortion 94 Tax Offenses 95 Hate Crimes and Protecting Civil Liberties 98 Civil Division 101 Affirmative Enforcement Unit 102 Civil Rights Enforcement 106 Financial Litigation Unit 108 Defensive Unit 112 Criminal and Civil Fines, Restitution and Assessments 116 Office Activities 117 Dedication 121 2 Message from the U.S. Attorney As Connecticut’s United States Attorney, it is my honor to work closely with federal and state prosecutors, agents and police officers in our collective effort to improve the safety and security of all our communities.
    [Show full text]
  • CT Reentry Strategy
    CT Reentry Collaborative Rob Hebert, Bridgeport Sue Gunderman, Hartford Dana Smith, New Britain Char Dornne Bussue, New Britain Earl Bloodworth, New Haven Donald Robinson, New Haven Kia Baird, Southeastern CT John Duca, Southeastern CT Jeremy Kosbob, Stamford Beth Hines, Waterbury Brittany Caruso, Windham Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy Andrew Clark Director Renee LaMark Muir Senior Research and Policy Analyst Mary Janicki Senior Research and Policy Analyst John Noonan Senior Budget and Policy Analyst Daryl McGraw Research and Policy Analyst The CT Reentry Collaborative would like to extend thanks to the Office of Policy and Management’s Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division for its assistance in both convening the meetings of the Reentry Strategy Workgroup and in the development of this document. www.ctreentry.org www.ccsu.edu/imrp June 28, 2018 Under Secretary Mike Lawlor Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division Office of Policy and Management 450 Capitol Avenue, MS#52CJP Hartford, CT 06106-1379 Dear Undersecretary Lawlor, The leaders of the CT Reentry Collaborative would like to thank you for all the work that has been done around criminal justice reform and reentry under Governor Malloy’s administration. We feel there have been many positive changes impacting thousands of individuals who have returned home or been diverted from incarceration. Connecticut is leading the way when it comes to these reforms. With that being said, the CT Reentry Collaborative, a stakeholder in this process, is concerned about the continuity of this progress with the introduction of new executive branch administration that may be wholly unfamiliar with the current strategic objectives and strategies for reform.
    [Show full text]
  • National Conference on Sex Offender Registries
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference Papers presented by Patty Wetterling Ralph C. Thomas Kirk Lonbom Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Elizabeth A. Pearson Mike Welter Marlene Beckman Dena T. Sacco Norm Maleng Lisa Gursky Sorkin Robert R. Belair Rep. Mike Lawlor Donna Feinberg Floyd Epps Sen. Florence Shapiro James C. Swain Kathy J. Canestrini Roxanne Lieb Emmet A. Rathbun Doug Smith Scott A. Cooper Donna M. Uzzell Criminal Justice Information Policy U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics National Conference on Sex Offender Registries Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference April 1998, NCJ-168965 Papers presented by Patty Wetterling Ralph C. Thomas Kirk Lonbom Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Elizabeth A. Pearson Mike Welter Marlene Beckman Dena T. Sacco Norm Maleng Lisa Gursky Sorkin Robert R. Belair Rep. Mike Lawlor Donna Feinberg Floyd Epps Sen. Florence Shapiro James C. Swain Kathy J. Canestrini Roxanne Lieb Emmet A. Rathbun Doug Smith Scott A. Cooper Donna M. Uzzell U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director Acknowledgments This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Director. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, and Eric C. Johnson, Writer/Researcher, Corporate Communications, edited the proceedings. Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Assistant, provided layout and design assistance. The federal project monitor was Carol G.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013-2014 Annual Report
    CONNECTICUT BAR ASSOCIATION ANNUAL REPORT of Sections and Committees 2013–2014 Connecticut Bar Association 30 Bank Street New Britain, CT 06050-0350 (860)223-4400, Fax (860)223-4488 Visit www.ctbar.org © 2014 Connecticut Bar Association CONNECTICUT BAR ASSOCIATION OFFICERS 2013–2014 President Kimberly A. Knox Horton Shields & Knox PC Hartford President-elect Mark A. Dubois Geraghty & Bonnano LLC New London Vice President William H. Clendenen, Jr. Clendenen & Shea LLC New Haven Secretary Alexis H. Smith New Haven Legal Assistance Association, Inc. New Haven Treasurer Jeffrey F. Buebendorf Brown Jacobson PC Norwich Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Jonathan M. Shapiro Shapiro Law Offices PC Middletown Immediate Past President Barry C. Hawkins Shipman & Goodwin LLP Stamford BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES District Name City District Name City 1 Donat C. Marchand Greenwich 10 William F. Dezinno Meriden 2 Stephen J. Conover Stamford 11 Steven D. Anderson New Britain 3 Kara A.T. Murphy Norwalk 12 John L. Bonee III West Hartford 4 Monte E. Frank Danbury 13 Janet L. Van Tassel* Middletown 5 James O. Gaston Bridgeport 14 Suzanne E. Caron* Vernon 6 J. Michael Sconyers Bantam 15 Howard B. Schiller* Willimantic 7 Thomas G. Parisot Waterbury 16 Daniel J. Horgan* New London 8 James E. Sheehy Ansonia 17 Cassie N. Jameson Norwich 9 Burton B. Cohen New Haven *Board of Governors of the House of Delegates member only HOUSE OF DELEGATES District Name City District Name City 1 Donat C. Marchand* Greenwich 11 Steven D. Anderson* New Britain 2 Adam J. Blank Stamford 11 Vincent P. Pace Berlin 2 Stephen J.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT SENTENCING COMMISSION 2013 ANNUAL REPORT 185 Main Street, Room 212 New Britain, CT 06051 860-832-1853 January 28, 2015 Hon. David M. Borden Chair Undersecretary Mike Lawlor To: The Honorable Dannel P. Malloy, Governor Vice Chair The Honorable Chase T. Rogers, Chief Justice The Honorable Members of the Connecticut General Assembly Andrew Clark Acting Executive Director Leland J. Moore, Program Administrator Public Act No. 10-129, which created the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, Research & Policy Associate requires the Commission to report to you annually upon its work and any recommendations it may have concerning sentencing statutes, policies and practices. Accordingly, I submit the Commission’s report for the year 2013. W ebsite: This report describes the work of the Commission during the year 2013 and www.ct.gov/opm/csc includes three proposals that were submitted for consideration at the 2014 legislative Email: session, as well as administrative recommendations to the Department of Correction. [email protected] I would like to express the Commission’s gratitude to the following entities for their Mailing Address: assistance in fulfilling our mission: Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at Central Connecticut State University, the Civil Justice Clinic at Quinnipiac University School of Institute for Municipal & Regional Law, and the Students and Faculty at Yale Law School. Policy Central Connecticut State University, Downtown Campus Room 212 185 Main ST New Britain, CT 06051 Respectfully, David M. Borden Chair, Connecticut Sentencing Commission PREPARED BY: INSTITUTE FOR MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL POLICY Central Connecticut State University Andrew J. Clark, Director Leland J. Moore, Esq., Research & Policy Associate Jason DePatie, Research & Policy Associate Madonna Burns, Student Worker The Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy (IMRP) is a non- partisan, University-based organization, dedicated to enriching the quality of local, state, and national public policy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Connecticut Case Study
    State and Local Regulation of Immigration and Immigrants: A Connecticut Case Study Amanda Mangaser December 17, 2013 Urban Legal History, Prof. Robert Ellickson Table of Contents Introduction 1 I. Local Immigration Measures 2 II. Preemption and Approaches to the Role of State and Local Governments in Regulating Immigration and Immigrants 11 A. Structural Preemption 11 B. Statutory Preemption 16 C. Approaches to the Role of State and Local Governments in Regulating Immigration and Immigrants 17 III. Recent Connecticut Regulation of Immigrants 33 A. Public Act No. 11-43, An Act Concerning Access to Postsecondary Education [2011] 34 B. Public Act No. 13-89, An Act Concerning the Issuance of Motor Vehicle Operators’ Licenses [2013] 49 C. Public Act No. 13-155, An Act Concerning Civil Immigration Detainers [2013] 55 Conclusion 60 Introduction In March 2007, the New York Times published an editorial contrasting the approaches of three Connecticut cities—Stamford, New Haven, and Danbury—to the issue of undocumented immigration.1 Entitled “Immigration: A Tale of Three Cities,” the article began by observing that “Connecticut does not speak with one voice on immigration. … Cities send their own messages, some welcoming, some divisive.”2 Yet expressive measures addressing undocumented immigration are not confined to the local level; Connecticut’s state legislature has in recent years “spoken” multiple times on the issue by passing legislation favorable to the state’s undocumented population. My examination of subfederal regulation of immigration in Connecticut provides a counterpoint to oft-articulated arguments against state and local immigration measures. While such arguments tend to focus on restrictive measures, recent developments in Connecticut highlight the potential for furthering immigrants’ rights through subfederal regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Testimony by Mike Lawlor, J.D., Associate Professor of Criminal
    Testimony by Mike Lawlor, J.D., Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, University of New Haven, in Support of S.B. 753 An Act Concerning the Counting of Incarcerated Persons for Purposes of Determining Legislative Districts Madam Chair Flexer, Mr. Chairman Fox, and members of the Committee, My name is Mike Lawlor, and I am a professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven. For 24 years, I represented East Haven’s 99th District in the Connecticut House of Representatives, serving as the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2011 and leading a wide variety of criminal justice reforms. After my time in the General Assembly, I served as the Undersecretary of Criminal Justice Policy and Planning in Governor Dannell Malloy’s administration from 2011 to 2019. There, I devoted myself to working with stakeholders across the state to build a positive vision for Connecticut, fine-tuning our criminal justice system to be smart on crime and building a “Second Chance Society.” I currently serve on the New Haven Board of Police Commissioners and the Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council. Having dedicated my career to criminal justice reform, I am happy to testify in support of S.B. 753. It is time for Connecticut to finally abolish the racially biased and undemocratic practice of “prison gerrymandering”. Over the past decade, Connecticut has become a national leader on criminal justice reform. As legislators you, together with countless criminal justice professionals and community advocates, have reduced crime to historic lows, abolished the death penalty, implemented juvenile justice and bail reforms, closed prisons across the state, and reduced penalties for and decriminalized or outright legalized nonviolent drug possession.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Standing Committee Hearings Judiciary Part 12
    JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS JUDICIARY PART 12 3621 - 3942 2009 003621 STATE OF CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE PROBATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR PAUL J. KNIERIM, JUDGE 186 NEWINGTON ROAD Probate Court Administrator WEST HARTFORD, CT 06110 THOMAS E. GAFFEY TEL (860) 231 -2442 Chief Counsel FAX (860) 231 -1055 HELEN B BENNET Attorney DEBRA COHEN Attorney To: Senate Co-Chair Andrew McDonald House Co-Chair Michael Lawlor Senate Ranking Member John Kissel House Ranking Member Arthur O'Neill Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee From: Paul J. Knierim, Judge Probate Court Administrator Re: HB 6027 An Act Concerning Probate Reforms HB 6385 An Act Concerning Reform of the Probate Court System Date: March 9, 2009 Thank you for the opportunity to testify about House Bills 6027 and 6385, which are the two key proposals before this Committee that would comprehensively restructure Connecticut's probate courts. I am grateful to the Committee for dedicating a public hearing to the important issues affecting the probate system. To be direct, this is a "sink or swim" legislative session for the probate courts. The probate system is steadily moving towards bankruptcy, and the pace of our financial decline will doubtless accelerate in the coming months as the impact of declining asset values takes its toll on probate fee revenue. Unless prompt action is taken now, the probate system will be insolvent and unable to meet its financial obligations during the coming fiscal year. Should the probate system be saved? My answer is a resounding yes. It is a user friendly court that is uniquely well suited to handle the sensitive family matters that the General Assembly has assigned to it over the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Ending Excessive Punishment for Violent Crimes
    THE NEXT STEP ENDING EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLENT CRIMES For more information, contact: This report was written by Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Ph.D., Senior Research Analyst at The Sentencing Project. Joshua Rovner, Senior Advocacy The Sentencing Project Associate, and Breanna Bishop, Communications Associate, made 1705 DeSales Street NW substantial contributions. 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged in research and advocacy on criminal justice issues. Our work is (202) 628-0871 supported by many individual donors and contributions from the following: sentencingproject.org twitter.com/sentencingproj Bainbridge Community Foundation facebook.com/thesentencingproject Benevity Community Impact Fund instagram.com/endlifeimprisonment Benjamin Fund Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation craigslist Charitable Fund Educational Foundation of America Elsie P van Buren Foundation Ford Foundation Foundation Beyond Belief General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church Gerbic Family Foundation Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation JK Irwin Foundation Jewish Communal Services Joseph and Harvey Meyerhoff Family Charitable Funds Mott Philanthropy Naduse Foundation Open Society Foundations Frank and Janina Petschek Foundation, Inc. Polis Schutz Family Foundation Public Welfare Foundation Elizabeth B. and Arthur E. Roswell Foundation Sagalyn Family Fund Solidarity Giving Tikva Grassroots Empowerment Fund of Tides Foundation Robert Trees Trust Wallace Global Fund Copyright © 2019 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this document in full or in part, and in print or electronic format, only by permission of The Sentencing Project. 2 The Sentencing Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 5 I. Introduction 8 II. Rejecting Death and Torture 10 A. The Nationwide Decline of the Death Penalty 10 B.
    [Show full text]