Last month, Connecticut U.S. Attorney Deirdre Daly announced the launch of the Connecticut Human Trafficking Task Force, a group dedicated to combatting sexual and labor exploitation for financial gain around the state. The issue of sex trafficking, in particular, is quickly reaching alarming levels of concern, as the Connecticut Department of Children and Families has received more than 80 referrals of possible trafficking victims just this year.
“Modern-Day Slavery”
At the press conference announcing the creation of the task force, Daly made very strong comments regarding the seriousness of the problem. “Over the last several years,” she said, “it has become increasingly clear that human trafficking, and especially the sex trafficking of minors, this cruel victimization of defenseless young girls and sometimes boys, is a form of modern-day slavery.” While law enforcement efforts continue, she observed, the Internet has made the buying and selling of sex with children more available than ever before.
Over the last few years, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy has certainly demonstrated his commitment to criminal justice reform throughout the state. Supporters and critics alike have acknowledged his efforts in allowing the justice system to focus on corrective action and saving the harshest penalties for the most violent and dangerous offenders. In a speech last month at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford, the Democratic governor outlined additional plans to continue in that vein in the coming months. For some, however, Malloy’s proposal for confidential trials for some offenders push the limits of reform just a little too far.
Juveniles and Young Adults
There is a growing amount of research that suggests that human brain is not fully formed until a person reaches his or her mid-20s on average. The age of majority—and the age at which virtually all criminal defendants are treated as adults—in most jurisdictions is only 18. Thus, science seems to indicate, that the maturity difference between and 18-year-old and a 25-year-old is significant, especially related to criminal penalties and rehabilitation. One of Governor Malloy’s stated intentions is to raise the age of adult criminal responsibility to age 21, creating additional opportunities for reform.
According to estimates from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, more than 10,000 people are killed every year in drunk driving accidents, with nearly 300,000 more being injured. Of course, in any such crash, the individual who chose to get behind the wheel while intoxicated bears the bulk of the responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused. However, the law in Connecticut provides that there may be other liable parties, including the owner of a bar or other establishment that may have overserved the drunk driver prior to he or she getting on the road.
Social Host Liability
Throughout the state of Connecticut, it is against the law for any establishment to sell or otherwise provide alcohol to an intoxicated person. In most cases, an offending bar owner is subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence. If, however, a bar serves an intoxicated person and that person subsequently injures another or causes other damages, the seller may be held liable for the injuries or damages, up to $250,000. The law, known as the Dram Shop Act, requires an injured party to show that the bar or its employees acted recklessly and/or intentionally continued to serve the intoxicated person, as action on the basis of negligence alone is not permitted if the intoxicated person is of legal drinking age.
When a person is injured in a car accident, by a defective product, or by any other means, he or she will often be entitled to seek compensation from the party or parties whose actions or negligence ultimately caused the injuries. Besides not being injured at all, the best-case scenario for such a claimant would be the existence of clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the defendant(s), and that the actions were completely responsible for the resulting harm.
However, in the real world, select few personal injury cases are that simple. More commonly, actions or negligence on the part of the injured person are at least partially to blame, and it is often left to a jury to determine the extent of that responsibility. The idea of comparative negligence, sometimes called comparative fault, can greatly impact an injured party’s ability to recover personal injury damages, depending upon the nature of the situation.
For most Connecticut residents, there are few things more revolting than the offense of child pornography. Such disgust is generally a result of a society’s healthy desire to protect children and to punish those who would cause children harm. The issue of child pornography is so sensitive, however, that many—including judges, lawyers, and most especially politicians—find it difficult to discuss in a constructive manner. This, unfortunately, means that those accused and convicted of possessing child pornography are subject to mandatory minimum sentences, and the presiding judges are granted virtually no discretion in getting the offender the help that he—and it is usually men—so desperately needs.
Required Penalties
Possession of child pornography offenses is categorized in the Connecticut Penal Code in three degrees, based on the nature and amount of pornographic material. A third-degree offense involves the possession of up to 20 images, including up to 20 frames of video of a single child. Second-degree offenses include between 20 and 50 images, and more than 20 frames of video. Possessing child pornography in the first degree involves 50 or more images, depictions of actual or threatened infliction of serious injury, or more explicit video depictions. The law provides a mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed upon conviction of:
Across the country, including right here in Connecticut, the decriminalization of minor marijuana possession is well underway. To date, 14 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation removing the threat of criminal penalties for, at least, low-level marijuana possession with some going as far fully legalizing recreational use.
Decriminalization is not the same as legalization, of course, and in most of the 14 states possessing marijuana is still against the law. Rather than prosecuting it as a crime, however, possession is treated as a civil infraction, similar to a speeding ticket. This creates a dilemma of sorts for many law enforcement officers. In neighboring Massachusetts, that dilemma was resolved last month when the commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled that traffic stops are no longer permitted solely on the suspicion of marijuana use or possession.
A new chapter has just begun in the story of personal injury law in the state of Connecticut. A noteworthy decision by the state Supreme Court last month recognized, for the first time, the rights of minor children to file a loss of consortium claim following an injury to a parent. Legal experts around the state and throughout the country have recognized the ruling as a large step forward, as a majority of jurisdictions in the United States already permit such action. In its decision, however, the Court included certain restrictions that may limit loss of consortium claims in particular situations.
The Case
In 2008, a West Haven man was hit by a car while riding his bicycle. He died three days later, and his wife filed suit against the car’s driver on several counts, including wrongful death, loss of spousal consortium, and loss of parental consortium on behalf of the couple’s three children. The trial court determined appropriate wrongful death damages to be almost $3 million, along with a $1 million award for the loss spousal consortium. Due to contributory negligence findings, the awards were reduced by 42 percent, and the actual awarded damages totaled about $2.3 million. The loss of parental consortium claim, however, was rejected. The children appealed, and Campos v. Coleman eventually made its way to the state Supreme Court.
It is known as the Reid Technique, and it is widely used by law enforcement officials to produce a confession from a criminal suspect. The problem is, however, that while the technique may work well in getting a suspect to go along with the interrogator’s version of what took place, the truth is often muddied. In some cases, it can be considered completely irrelevant. So, why do police departments continue to use it and what can you do to avoid being talked into a false confession?
Reid Technique Basics
Unlike more confrontational interrogation methods, the Reid Technique is highly manipulative and relies heavily on human psychology. It begins with a behavior analysis based on a number of non-threatening questions to establish the subject’s baseline when telling the truth. Based on the results of the analysis, interrogators quickly get a sense of whether or not they believe the suspect to be lying about the act in question. At this point, the interrogator will typically leave the room and return in a few minutes an official-looking file.
Over the last two decades, the phrase “shaken baby syndrome” has entered the modern medical lexicon as a way of describing head injuries sustained by an infant, presumably as the result of physical abuse. Allegations of abuse are usually focused on the child’s parents or caregivers, and, in most cases, it would seem that the symptoms could not possibly have been the result of anything else. A growing number of medical professionals, however, including one whose testimony provided the cornerstone of a landmark shaken baby trial in 1997 are beginning to question the assumption that all such symptoms are the result of criminal abuse.
Abusive Head Trauma
While shaken baby syndrome has been a recognized diagnosis for a number of years, its colloquial-sounding name has been replaced by many professionals with the more clinical “abusive head trauma.” Its symptoms are usually threefold: swelling of the brain, bleeding on the surface of the brain, and bleeding behind the eyes. Known as the triad, these symptoms alone have been accepted as evidence of criminal abuse or violence, despite the lack of accompanying bruises, contusions, or broken bones.
The application and development of laws and public policies pertaining to sex offenders are often a “very politically charged and emotionally charged issue,” according to Andrew Clark, acting executive director of the Connecticut Sentencing Commission. The Commission, thanks to a recently passed legislative measure, has been tasked with conducting a full review of the state’s sex offender registry and its effectiveness in promoting public safety. In order to do so, the Sentencing Commission has created a task force co-chaired by Robert Farr, former chair of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles and longtime legislator, and Stephen Grant, executive director court support services for the Connecticut Judicial Branch.
The State of the Sex Offender Registry
Connecticut’s sex offender registry was created by law in 1999 and now consists of more than 6,000 names in an online database. While it was designed to help alert the public about potentially dangerous sex criminals, critics maintain that the lack of organization and the use of unnecessarily complex language makes the list all but impossible for most citizens to utilize easily.