Civil-rights groups and legal experts back consolidating Connecticut—s hate-crime laws; lawmakers ask for clearer penalties

Supporters of SB 90 told the Judiciary Committee that consolidating Connecticut—s scattered hate-crime statutes into a single penal-code chapter would reduce ambiguity and help law enforcement and prosecutors enforce the law.

Stacy Sobel of the Anti-Defamation League said hate crimes have an outsized community impact and that the bill would update definitions and make prosecution and training more consistent. "These crimes have a profound impact because the targeted individuals have been targeted based on protected immutable characteristics," she said.

Sachin Pandya, a UConn law professor, and Andy Feinstein, a member of the state's Hate Crimes Advisory Council, urged consolidation and the removal of ambiguous language such as "maliciously." Pandya argued replacing that term with clearer mens rea language would reduce prosecutorial uncertainty and improve victims' access to remedies.

Committee members welcomed the goal but questioned particular provisions. Representative Stastrom, Representative Fishbein and others asked whether the consolidation imports civil CHRO-like language into the criminal code and whether some items in the draft had inconsistent penalties. The bill's supporters said the text draws from existing criminal statutes (for example, 46a-58 and related provisions) and that consolidation does not create brand-new crimes but gathers and clarifies existing ones.

Hospital and business groups flagged particular sections they feared could criminalize certain forms of civil regulatory noncompliance; the bill's authors said those concerns arise from cross-references and can be tightened.

Ending: Lawmakers asked the hate-crimes advisory council and stakeholders to consider sentencing consistency and technical clarifications; the committee may move a consolidation bill forward if drafters address those issues.