Anthony Brunetti sat before a judge last year, hoping for a second chance. Convicted of first-degree murder in 2002 at just 19 years old, he had spent more than two decades behind bars. Since then, advocates said he had transformed himself—building a record of good behavior and rehabilitation. Still, his request for a sentence modification was swiftly denied.
The judge, a former federal prosecutor, barely engaged with the case, according to Randal Chinnock, who leads the Connecticut Second Look Sentencing Project. Now, Brunetti must wait years before he can ask again.
Chinnock believes that needs to change.
A CT bill would shorten the wait
Under current Connecticut law, incarcerated people who have served significant time can petition for a sentence reduction. If denied, however, they must wait five years before trying again. Senate Bill 1327, now under debate in the General Assembly, would shorten that waiting period to two years.
“The U.S. is an extreme outlier in the world for our rate of incarceration and long sentences,” Chinnock said. “Connecticut’s no exception.”
According to the non-partisan and non-profit Prison Policy Initiative, the only countries that jail more people per capita than the United States are Rwanda, Cuba and El Salvador. Connecticut’s bill is part of a broader effort to reconsider long prison terms, especially for people convicted at a young age. Chinnock’s organization aims to help those who no longer pose a threat to society regain their freedom.
“We need to focus on the person who stands before the court today,” Chinnock said. “Not the often very different person who committed a crime, sometimes decades before.”
Moving decisions away from politics
One major shift proposed in the bill would be how sentence modifications are handled. The proposal would transfer some of that power away from the parole board—an entity that, Chinnock argues, is too influenced by political pressure. Connecticut’s Board of Pardons and Paroles is composed of members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state legislature. Chinnock thinks this process makes board members more susceptible to political considerations, as their decisions can be scrutinized by lawmakers and the public in ways that may discourage granting early releases—even in cases where it appears earned.
“The parole board is subject to narrow political interests and tends to focus too much on re-litigating the original crime,” he said. “We need courts to take a broader view.”
Chinnock pointed out that many serving life sentences in Connecticut were under 25 years old when convicted. Neuroscience research shows that the brain’s decision-making abilities are not fully developed at that age, making young offenders more prone to impulsive actions.
“When a young person loses self-control and acts violently, they’re not thinking about consequences,” he said. “They may not be thinking at all.”
The cost of keeping people locked up
Beyond fairness, Chinnock argues that sentence reform is a financial issue. The state spends roughly $185,000 per year to incarcerate one person.
“We don’t have to de-carcerate many people to save an awful lot of money,” he said.
Chinnock says that’s especially true for older prisoners, whose healthcare costs rise significantly with age. The longer someone stays behind bars, the more Connecticut taxpayers foot the bill.
Prosecutorial roadblocks
Currently, prosecutorial approval is required in some cases for sentence modifications. Chinnock sees this as another major barrier.
“There are many good and fair prosecutors,” he said. “But we must recognize that they are incentivized by the Department of Criminal Justice [Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice] to seek long sentences for as many defendants as possible.”
According to Chinnock, prosecutors often resist revisiting old cases, fearing that modifying a sentence could be seen as an admission that the original punishment was too harsh.
What about the victims?
Any conversation about reducing sentences must contend with the emotions of victims’ families. For those who have lost loved ones to violence, the idea of releasing offenders early can feel like an injustice.
“I think everyone has compassion for the survivors of crime. I certainly do,” Chinnock said. “But there are surveys indicating that even a majority of survivors favor second-look laws.”
He pointed to organizations like The Connecticut Second Look Sentencing Project and The Alliance for Safety and Justice that have found many victims prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.
A measured approach
Chinnock insists that sentence reductions wouldn’t be a free-for-all.
“Those not found to be sufficiently low risk will be denied,” he said. “And studies show that the rate of re-arrest for those released by the sentence modification mechanism is far lower than the general population of people who get released from prison.”
Chinnock says SB1327 is set to come to a vote between April 7 and April 11.
