{"id":1677,"date":"2014-03-28T16:13:39","date_gmt":"2014-03-28T20:13:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/?p=1677"},"modified":"2021-03-29T17:45:11","modified_gmt":"2021-03-29T21:45:11","slug":"ct-zones","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/2014\/03\/28\/ct-zones\/","title":{"rendered":"New Report and a Legislative Breakfast on Connecticut’s sentencing enhancement zones"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"report<\/a>This morning I presented our new research on Connecticut’s sentencing enhancement zones<\/a> at an informational Legislative Breakfast hosted by A Better Way Foundation<\/a>, Unitarian Universalist Society: East Manchester, and Senator Gary Holder-Winfield.\n<\/p>\n

\"Connecticut<\/p>\n

I discuss Hartford’s zones with Representative Brandon McGee<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\nThe report<\/a>, released today, analyzes Connecticut’s 1,500-foot sentencing enhancement zones, mapping the zones in the state’s cities and towns and demonstrates that the law doesn\u2019t work, it cannot possibly work as written, and that it creates an unfair two-tiered system of justice based on a haphazard distinction between urban and rural areas of the state.\n<\/p>\n

\nConnecticut\u2019s 1,500-foot sentencing enhancement zones, meant to protect children from drug activity, are some of the largest in the country. I described how the law\u2019s sheer expanse means it fails to actually set apart protected areas and that it arbitrarily increases penalties for urban residents.\n<\/p>\n

\"Connecticut<\/p>\n

Senator Gary Holder-Winfield speaking at the breakfast<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\nSB 259<\/a>, currently pending before the Judiciary Committee, would decrease that size to a more effective 200 feet. This would allow the law to actually create the specially protected places it was intended to in the first place. Making the zone smaller would come much closer to the law\u2019s original intent, and largely get rid of the urban penalty effect. For more details on the bill, check out my written testimony<\/a> (with maps).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Published a new report on Conn.’s sentencing enhancement zones, presented findings at legislative breakfast.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,5],"tags":[],"coauthors":[12],"class_list":["post-1677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","category-zones"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1677","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1677"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1677\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11877,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1677\/revisions\/11877"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1677"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}