Post by addisona on Feb 11, 2022 15:18:52 GMT
Connecticut Begins To Confront Racial Disparities In Mandatory Minimum sentencing
Last week, in State v. Belcher, an opinion authored by Justice Mullins, a unanimous Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court held that the sentencing court had abused its discretion when it substantially relied on materially false information in imposing a 60-year sentence; specifically, that the defendant, a Black teenager, was a ''charter member'' of a mythical group of teenage ''superpredators.'' As the state's Supreme Court noted, "it was the prism through which the court viewed this defendant" in concluding that the sentence had been imposed in an illegal manner.
The court cited extensive research data and empirical analysis to articulate why the sentencing court's reliance on the materially false superpredator myth was baseless and thus an inappropriate sentencing consideration, especially detrimental to the integrity of the sentencing procedure.
Specifically, in describing the prejudice to the defendant, the court explained how the trial court's reliance on that myth invoked harmful racial stereotypes that dehumanized Black children deemed to be unworthy of the benefit of social reforms, grounded in the doctrine of parens patriae and reserved only for white children. As the court painfully reminded us, historically Black children continued to be seen as subhuman, and the superpredator myth fed upon and fueled fears inspired by these dehumanizing racial stereotypes.
The court also explained how the superpredator label improperly treated the characteristics of youth—impulsivity, submission to peer pressure, deficient judgment—as aggravating, rather than as mitigating, factors, in violation of United States Supreme Court authority.
www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trials-appeals-compensation/1160716/connecticut-begins-to-confront-racial-disparities-in-mandatory-minimum-sentencing
Last week, in State v. Belcher, an opinion authored by Justice Mullins, a unanimous Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court held that the sentencing court had abused its discretion when it substantially relied on materially false information in imposing a 60-year sentence; specifically, that the defendant, a Black teenager, was a ''charter member'' of a mythical group of teenage ''superpredators.'' As the state's Supreme Court noted, "it was the prism through which the court viewed this defendant" in concluding that the sentence had been imposed in an illegal manner.
The court cited extensive research data and empirical analysis to articulate why the sentencing court's reliance on the materially false superpredator myth was baseless and thus an inappropriate sentencing consideration, especially detrimental to the integrity of the sentencing procedure.
Specifically, in describing the prejudice to the defendant, the court explained how the trial court's reliance on that myth invoked harmful racial stereotypes that dehumanized Black children deemed to be unworthy of the benefit of social reforms, grounded in the doctrine of parens patriae and reserved only for white children. As the court painfully reminded us, historically Black children continued to be seen as subhuman, and the superpredator myth fed upon and fueled fears inspired by these dehumanizing racial stereotypes.
The court also explained how the superpredator label improperly treated the characteristics of youth—impulsivity, submission to peer pressure, deficient judgment—as aggravating, rather than as mitigating, factors, in violation of United States Supreme Court authority.
www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trials-appeals-compensation/1160716/connecticut-begins-to-confront-racial-disparities-in-mandatory-minimum-sentencing