Connecticut House Bill HB05546

Connecticut 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/15/18
• Refer: 3/15/18
• Report Pass: 4/2/18
• Refer: 4/9/18
• Report Pass: 4/16/18

Caption

An Act Concerning Larceny Against A Person With Intellectual Disability.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would amend Section 53a-123 of the general statutes, establishing that thefts involving victims who are elderly or those with intellectual disabilities would incur harsher penalties. This modification in the law would signify a legislative commitment to safeguard these vulnerable populations, highlighting the necessity for laws that recognize and respond to their specific vulnerabilities. Law enforcement agencies will be required to take these factors into consideration when pursuing cases of larceny involving affected individuals, thus enhancing the legal protections afforded to them.

Summary

House Bill 05546 aims to address larceny against individuals with intellectual disabilities by amending existing larceny statutes. The bill specifically targets offenses where the victim is categorized as having an intellectual disability, thereby increasing the severity of punishment for perpetrators of such crimes. Under the provisions of this bill, the definition of larceny would expand to include acts committed with the knowledge of the victim's condition, leading to greater protective legislation for vulnerable individuals in society.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 05546 seems to lean positively among legislators and advocacy groups focused on the rights of individuals with disabilities. Supporters commend the intent behind the bill, viewing it as an essential step towards ensuring justice for some of the most vulnerable members of society. However, there are underlying concerns regarding the implementation of such laws and the challenges in proving intention and knowledge on the part of the offender, which could complicate legal proceedings.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 05546 could include discussions about the practical implications of enforcing the proposed changes. Critics may argue that while the intent is noble, increased penalties might not sufficiently deter crime or serve as an effective means of protection for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Furthermore, concerns may arise regarding the adequacy of resources for prosecution and the challenges faced when attempting to prove a perpetrator's knowledge of the victim's condition.