Earlier this month, the public had a chance to play a role in the appointment of a new chief state's attorney. The event was a forum at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. The idea was to make the selection of prosecutors more transparent in this state.
This is a good idea in itself, since government openness is one hallmark of a democracy that really works. And in this case there is a troubling history that needs to be addressed.
We may be considered a very “blue” state — we may pat ourselves on the back for attitudes that we believe are advanced and reasonable — but, according to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the disparities between the racial makeup of Connecticut and the racial makeup of the state’s prison population “are some of the worst in the country.” Connecticut’s population is majority white, but its prison population is majority black and Latino.
Advocates of judicial reform see an opportunity for the state to name a top prosecutor committed to criminal justice reforms and reducing the racial disparities in Connecticut’s judicial system.
That, too, is a good thing, and long overdue. Given that prosecutors hold a great deal of power — power to change, or power to continue past practices — the way we choose prosecutors is bound to affect our state’s direction, well into the future.
Prosecutors are one key to reducing mass imprisonment and diverting people to services designed to address root causes of crime.
“Everyone has a role in ending mass incarceration, including prosecutors and the members of the commission that appoints them,” Anderson Curtis, a field organizer for the ACLU of Connecticut's Smart Justice campaign, told the Hartford forum, as reported by the Connecticut Mirror.
Other ideas discussed at the forum included introducing legislation to treat addiction as an illness and not a crime; reforming the state's cash bail system; establishing independent, citizen-led police review boards that have subpoena power; and setting uniform standards and guidelines across all 13 judicial districts.
As things stand, Curtis said, “two people could face wildly different charges, plea offers and diversionary programs based on their judicial district.”
And that’s just wrong.