Triple homicide behind calls for review of parole system. Or “Ugh.”
I resisted. I tried very hard. I clenched my fists. I got up and walked away from the computer. I let it be for a few days, thinking it would pass. Then I read this story.
Heinous, depraved, disgusting crimes no doubt. Do they warrant a review of the parole system? Absolutely not. [That's not to say that the parole system doesn't warrant reviewing, but my point is that this should not be the sole cause. There are plenty of things wrong with the parole system here.] Both men had lengthy criminal records, but the crimes were non-violent. In Connecticut, there are two eligibility classes: 50% (non-violent) and 85% (violent).
Here’s the thing, though: Even if you’re convicted of a non-violent offense, parole has the authority to (and frequently does) classify you as violent based on history, facts of the case, even nolled or dismissed charges. In some cases, the history stretches back 10 years. Their “unofficial” policy is that if an individual has two violent felony convictions in the last 10 years, then even if the current conviction is non-violent, they are automatically classified at 85%. I have previously written about CT’s parole system here.
One of these guys had served almost 4 years of a 5 year sentence and the other had served half of a nine year sentence. By all accounts, they were model inmates and not a hint of violence in their backgrounds.
Bob Farr, Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles said:
“Both offenders were deemed to be appropriate candidates for supervised parole based on their criminal history, which involved the minimum level of violence.”
“The board took a look at the history. They took a look at crimes and whether they were violent offenses, and under most standards, the individuals had no history of violent crimes they have now been charged with.
A Department of Correction spokesperson had this to say:
“Both were on a weekly reporting schedule with their parole officers and had been in full compliance with the requirements of their release, including being employed on a full-time basis.”
Yet state lawmakers are calling for a “review of parole procedures”. I hate to say it and I feel awful doing so, given the tragedies, but sometimes, these things happen. You cannot control it. As much as I dislike parole policies in Connecticut, I cannot blame them here. They are not soothsayers; they cannot see into the future.
“How do we review candidates for parole? Even though violence is not in their past record, but it shows what they can do in the future. We have to ask that question,” [State Rep.] Caligiuri said.
Read that again. Tell me if that makes any sense. Violence is not in their past, but it (what is it?) shows what they can do in the future. What shows what?
He also said
“…these men seem to have conspired to commit even more heinous crimes, instead of being rehabilitated in the state system.”
Ah, there you have it. Although he doesn’t realize he’s saying it, the question is truly: Do prisons rehabilitate and do our prisons rehabilitate? What is being done in correctional facilities in Connecticut to ensure that inmates re-enter society as productive, responsible members? Frankly, given the state of overcrowding in facilities, how much can they do?
Which is what makes this State Rep’s suggestion mind boggling:
State Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, said Wednesday that in light of the Cheshire home invasion, the state needs to reassess the penalties for those convicted of burglary.
Kissel, who serves as a member of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee as well as chairman of the Connecticut Sentencing Task Forece’s subcommittee on racial and ethnic disparity, said that the current law considers burglaries to be a non-violent crime. He suggested that the law be changed to require mandatory prison sentences.
Again, instead of focusing on the real problem, let’s give out harsher sentences across the board.
I’m not even going to touch the death penalty issue.
Having said all this, I would not want to be the guy who has a parole hearing scheduled in the near future.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on July 25, 2007 at 7:31 pm, and is filed under "Baker" claims, cheshire, ct legal news. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
This is one reason why many many people dislike defense lawyers. It’s one thing to defend your clients with the zealousness of a tiger, quite another to make arguments about criminal justice that discount one very very important thing about the criminal justice system. In addition, criminal defense lawyers tend to blame society when ex-cons reoffend because the prisons don’t rehabilitate. The blame lies with the ex-con.
What is really off-putting about your post is your dismissal of the three victims here. Three people are dead, and before that suffered unimaginably. The survivor probably would give anything, anything, to be able to trade his life for one of his family members lives. You have the unmitigated gall to suggest that the state should not look over its parole procedures and eligibility for parole. Whatever. When people are discovered to be innocent, what do you think about prosecutors who take the attitude “Well it was a terrible thing, but you know, sh_t happens”. You don’t like it very much I am sure. Well, guess what, your attitude is similar.
The older of these two pieces of human detritus should have been locked away for the rest of his life. He was a career criminal with numerous convictions. Moreover, his numerous home invasions (which are burglaries where the burglar knows or should know that people are actually home) should have sent a red flag to the parole board. People who are willing on numerous occasions to enter people’s homes while those people are homes are willing, if push comes to shove (i.e., if the occupants decide to resist), to, at a minimum, cause serious bodily injury to anyone in the house. Plus, as this case amply demonstrates, the temptation, once one of these home invaders has control of the occupants, to abuse the occupants is hard for career criminals to resist. And Mr. Moral Highground, let me ask you this, if someone had asked you about the older guy, would you, with the knowledge of the parole board, have risked your life on (a) that he would never burgle again and (b) if he did, that he wouldn’t hurt anyone. While I agree that is a bit of an unfair question, the point of it is that when we release criminals, we are taking a risk. And when truly awful crimes like this occur, we sometimes need to re-evaluate our policies. The “violent/non-violent” distinction here was silly, as the older guy’s prior (and repeated) crimes should that he was clearly willing to hurt vulnerable people. And let’s put it this way, I am the father of two young sons. If someone is in my house, I will fight to the death to protect them. To the death. People who break into houses repeatedly know that they may have to deal with people like that. They are prepared to inflict violence.
The parole board is not the only problem here. The other is the law. The older guy should have gotten a life without parole sentence for his crimes. A 44 year-old with a history of crime as serious as his has proven beyond any doubt his complete inability to conform his actions to law. The law should therefore have provided for his lifelong incapacitation.
As for the death penalty, this crime clearly qualifies as the “worst of the worst”. What kind of disgusting subhuman detritus rapes a girl in the presence of her family and then burns the family to death? These people don’t deserve another breath of air.
about 4 years ago
I will try to address each of your points in turn.
[quote comment="3100"]This is one reason why many many people dislike defense lawyers. It’s one thing to defend your clients with the zealousness of a tiger, quite another to make arguments about criminal justice that discount one very very important thing about the criminal justice system. In addition, criminal defense lawyers tend to blame society when ex-cons reoffend because the prisons don’t rehabilitate. The blame lies with the ex-con.
[/quote]
I want to be very clear. (I thought I was, but I guess not.) I am in no way commenting on their offenses themselves. As I stated in my post, these are awful crimes, depraved and heinous. There is no doubt about that. Which is why I resisted posting, because I had nothing but profanities to offer. Then this story about parole comes along, which stirred me enough to start a discussion on the law and policy. The focus of my post was on the misguided call for a review of parole procedures and I do think this call is misguided.
As for rehab, it is (or used to be) a goal of incarceration. If we are incarcerating individuals on the grounds that they did “something bad”, then the logical next step is to do something to “fix” them or rehabilitate them. Or have you joined the silent movement that has abandoned all rehabilitation efforts?
[quote]What is really off-putting about your post is your dismissal of the three victims here. Three people are dead, and before that suffered unimaginably. The survivor probably would give anything, anything, to be able to trade his life for one of his family members lives. You have the unmitigated gall to suggest that the state should not look over its parole procedures and eligibility for parole. Whatever. When people are discovered to be innocent, what do you think about prosecutors who take the attitude “Well it was a terrible thing, but you know, sh_t happens”. You don’t like it very much I am sure. Well, guess what, your attitude is similar.[/quote]
Where have I dismissed the victims and this tragedy? It is not the focus of my post. I am not commenting on their acts.
My point was and is that the parole board could have done nothing to foresee this, so to blame them is misguided and incorrect.
[quote]The older of these two pieces of human detritus should have been locked away for the rest of his life. He was a career criminal with numerous convictions. Moreover, his numerous home invasions (which are burglaries where the burglar knows or should know that people are actually home) should have sent a red flag to the parole board. People who are willing on numerous occasions to enter people’s homes while those people are homes are willing, if push comes to shove (i.e., if the occupants decide to resist), to, at a minimum, cause serious bodily injury to anyone in the house. Plus, as this case amply demonstrates, the temptation, once one of these home invaders has control of the occupants, to abuse the occupants is hard for career criminals to resist. And Mr. Moral Highground, let me ask you this, if someone had asked you about the older guy, would you, with the knowledge of the parole board, have risked your life on (a) that he would never burgle again and (b) if he did, that he wouldn’t hurt anyone. While I agree that is a bit of an unfair question, the point of it is that when we release criminals, we are taking a risk. And when truly awful crimes like this occur, we sometimes need to re-evaluate our policies. The “violent/non-violent” distinction here was silly, as the older guy’s prior (and repeated) crimes should that he was clearly willing to hurt vulnerable people. And let’s put it this way, I am the father of two young sons. If someone is in my house, I will fight to the death to protect them. To the death. People who break into houses repeatedly know that they may have to deal with people like that. They are prepared to inflict violence.[/quote]I disagree with you that all people who have burgled are willing to engage in violence. For example, today also brings the story of the man who fled a house in the process of a burglary when he discovered there was a 15-year old boy there.
I understand your point about what a parent would do. I don’t dispute that. Again, I am not commenting on the actual crime itself. There is no wiggle room on the awfulness of these acts. They are truly horrific.
[quote]The parole board is not the only problem here. The other is the law. The older guy should have gotten a life without parole sentence for his crimes. A 44 year-old with a history of crime as serious as his has proven beyond any doubt his complete inability to conform his actions to law. The law should therefore have provided for his lifelong incapacitation.
As for the death penalty, this crime clearly qualifies as the “worst of the worst”. What kind of disgusting subhuman detritus rapes a girl in the presence of her family and then burns the family to death? These people don’t deserve another breath of air.[/quote]Which brings me back to my first point – rehabilitation. Clearly there is something going on that is not being addressed. Taxpayer money would be better spent delving into why this individual has the desire to constantly burgle. Perhaps it is to feed a drug addiction. We won’t know if we don’t ask the questions.
I am anti-death penalty as a principle, so I’m not going to comment on that. I don’t want to make this another discussion about the death penalty.
about 4 years ago
One more. You said:
[quote]The “violent/non-violent” distinction here was silly[/quote]
The reason I brought that up is to highlight the fact that under the currently existed parole scheme, those who are not violent get classified as such and have to serve almost all of their sentences. In such a scheme, there isn’t much room for more harshness.
The parole scheme is harsh as it stands. If, under that harsh scheme, these two were deemed fit for re-entry, then this truly is out of the ordinary (in more ways than one).
Which brings me back to my basic point: Parole would have had to be a fortune teller to know this was going to happen.
Let me repeat this, lest I am not clear enough: I am not condoning these acts, nor am I defending them.
about 4 years ago
Gideon, you set up a straw man. I don’t think that you are condoning these acts. What I am saying is that after three people have been murdered (in a most gruesome way) that you are saying categorically that the people who let these people out should not even question the system. That is arrogance beyond belief. Remember, we are talking about public safety here. And, when the shoe is on the other foot and some prosecutor doesn’t think that an innocent person being convicted shouldn’t prompt an evaluation of why and whether something can be done in the future to prevent such a miscarriage, you guys are positively apoplectic.
As for your other points, to be honest, I think you miss mine. I NEVER said that all people who burgle present heighten threats of violence, what I did say is that a guy who repeatedly home invades (i.e., when he knows or should know that people will be home) like the older guy here, then he is an danger, and he (a) should not have been paroled and (b) should be locked up for the rest of his life.
As for “rehabilitation”, I would argue that Connecticut made every effort here to rehab this scum. Look at the supervision. But the issue, really, is your facile blame share here. Society is not at fault here at all. The lack of rehabilitation is used as a hammer to undermine the moral authority we have as a society to lock up criminals. And taxpayer money is better spent incapacitating these people than trying to rehab them. Yes, I agree that we should try to rehab criminals. But, rehab or not, criminals with the 44 year old’s history should be locked up for good.
The other straw man argument is the “parole board” has to be clairvoyant. I did not say this at all. What I did say is that people with the 44 year old’s history of home invasions are extremely dangerous. And parole boards cannot be blind to that. Here the “non-violent” moniker blinded them to a pretty nasty reality. This guy broke into homes with people in them using night vision goggles. He obviously thought out what he wanted to do and I am sure thought out what he would do if confronted. That makes him dangerous. Any idiot could have seen that. And so again, I ask, would you have bet your life that (a) that this guy wouldn’t home invade again and (b) that he wouldn’t be violent if confronted. I doubt you would. Remember, that when people like this are let out, we roll the dice with someone’s life. Unfortunately, the Petits paid for that gamble with theirs.
I cannot resist my derision at your “we need to ask why he does this” plea. We are talking about a 44 year old man and a lifelong criminal. Don’t you think that taxpayer money would have been far better spent identifying this guy 10 years ago and incarcerating him for life? Three people would be alive today if Connecticut had a sentencing regime whereby people with a criminal history like that spent the rest of their lives in jail. And if you think that serving 5 years after doing over 10 home invasions is a “harsh” regime, you are a true believer.
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="3107"]Gideon, you set up a straw man. I don’t think that you are condoning these acts. What I am saying is that after three people have been murdered (in a most gruesome way) that you are saying categorically that the people who let these people out should not even question the system. That is arrogance beyond belief. Remember, we are talking about public safety here. And, when the shoe is on the other foot and some prosecutor doesn’t think that an innocent person being convicted shouldn’t prompt an evaluation of why and whether something can be done in the future to prevent such a miscarriage, you guys are positively apoplectic.[/quote]I am not smart enough to know how to intentionally create a straw man
The questions are being asked and I am providing one answer.
(As an aside, I find it quite ironic that I am defending the parole board.)
[quote]As for your other points, to be honest, I think you miss mine. I NEVER said that all people who burgle present heighten threats of violence, what I did say is that a guy who repeatedly home invades (i.e., when he knows or should know that people will be home) like the older guy here, then he is an danger, and he (a) should not have been paroled and (b) should be locked up for the rest of his life.[/quote]If I did, I apologize. I will still disagree with you. The difference between robbery and burglary is the use of force. Repeated convictions for burglary, but none for robbery should indicate that he will turn violent at some point, or that he is not violent? Based on the evidence before it, the parole board could not have foreseen this.
[quote]As for “rehabilitation”, I would argue that Connecticut made every effort here to rehab this scum. Look at the supervision. But the issue, really, is your facile blame share here. Society is not at fault here at all. The lack of rehabilitation is used as a hammer to undermine the moral authority we have as a society to lock up criminals. And taxpayer money is better spent incapacitating these people than trying to rehab them. Yes, I agree that we should try to rehab criminals. But, rehab or not, criminals with the 44 year old’s history should be locked up for good.[/quote] Again, I will disagree. I think efforts should be made to rehabilitate and harsh penalties should be used only as a last resort. As of now, there is no evidence of rehabilitation either way, but I suspect that there wasn’t much.
I will give you this: If efforts were made and they failed and he continued to re-offend as he did, then the repeat offender statute should have been used.
about 4 years ago
Are you really that obtuse, to deny that a guy who repeatedly enters homes knowing that there are people in there is not a threat of violence?
about 4 years ago
No, no, no.
Entering a home is NOT a violent crime. But I’m not even going to touch that issue. (And no, Gideon, I don’t think you’re obtuse.)
I’d like to talk about the rehabilitation issue. It IS obtuse to believe that parole supervision equals rehabilitation. The truth of the matter is that our system is purely punitive and nature, and not rehabilitative in the least. There are several factors here. The first is the element of human nature involved: The general public would much rather see a ‘bad’ man suffer than a broken man be fixed.
The second issue is a more practical assessment. We just don’t have enough resources to provide adequate rehabilitation services to inmates.
Of course, this all begs the question of whose responsibility rehab lies with. I think it’s naive to say it lies with the ex-con. Usually the problem has arisen long before a criminal record begins. If we were to fix our educational and social service programs, we’d have a lot less to deal with in the criminal justice system.
about 4 years ago
SaucyVixen, you’re right, entering a home per se is not a violent crime. But that’s not really the issue, now is it? The issue is the risk to the public in letting out a guy who repeatedly entered homes where he knew people were present. You know, families. It is obtuse to deny that this 44 year guy posed a significant risk of violence. He was a methodical and prepared criminal. Do you honestly think that he never stopped to think what he would do if he got confronted by a homeowner? Of course he did, and of course, someone who is willing to, repeatedly, go into occupied dwellings is willing to inflict violence on those inside. A home has all sorts of items that can be used as weaponry–and a guy as methodical as this one had to have anticipated what he would do to a homeowner who decided to arm himself with a knife, baseball bat etc. This is undeniable.
And it’s interesting that you call me “naive”. You think that if we just spent enough money and were nice to these poor dears, we wouldn’t have these criminals.
You guys think it ok to impose these risks on society. I don’t. There are a lot of corpses which argue eloquently for my way of thinking.
about 4 years ago
Hi Sean O’Brien,
Admittedly, I haven’t read up on this case as much as some, but where is the information coming from that either of these men repeatedly went into homes knowing people were in them? I know they both have histories of burglaries – I do not know how many total, how many involved homes, or what their knowledge was of its occupants. Could you share what you know?
Second, it seems to me that from the position you’re advocating, it would be nearly impossible to have a parole system at all. Will anyone EVER be willing to wager their lives that the parolee will never reoffend?? I don’t think that’s possible. Do you and if so, under what circumstances?
I guess my question is – if you believe the law should be changed (no parole at all, 3 strikes and you’re out, etc.), that has nothing to do with parole practices or standards, specifically. I think where this conversation started is what, if anything, could parole have done that would have resulted in a different outcome? And is this really a parole issue at all?
about 4 years ago
Sean,
I am not familiar with CT law, so is “knew or should have known” an element of the offense or is it an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes? Under CA law the element is “inhabited” and I do not know that the defendant need be aware of habitation (this does not really come up in federal courts). I agree that it is a factor that under ordinary circumstances justifies a higher sentence, but I of course disagree with you that life imprisonment without parole is the answer.
Personally, I don’t think that incarceration has anything to do with rehabilitation or even should, for that matter. Imprisonment serves either punitive or preventive ends (i.e., incapacitation). Rehab is really served by supervised release (in theory).
But I agree with Gideon. This was a freak event, there was nothing in their offense histories to indicate something like this would happen and an across-the-board backlash is unwarranted in any circumstance.
about 4 years ago
Miranda, this is a parole issue, as these two should not have been paroled. However, I agree that the reality is that Connecticut should have had in place a three-strikes type statute which would have put these guys away before they graduated to the torture, rape and murder of a family. Quite simply, these animals deserve death.
If you look at their history, these guys were home invaders, i.e., going into houses at night (when families would be home). One of them used night vision goggles. They did very little time for these crimes.
As for parole and the risk, I agree (and I did say) that the “risk your life” question was somewhat unfair. But it illustrates a point, and that point is that criminals are dangerous people. That is a reality that we have to deal with as a society. Thus, when people are released on parole or when you have sentencing laws that allow repeat offenders to become free, people will die as a result. Unfortunately, the Petits are not the first, nor will they be the last people to die. Now, I agree that we cannot lock everyone up for the rest of their lives if they steal a car. However, the criminal histories for both of these guys (repeated burglaries) justifies such a sentence. Any cop will tell you that a burglar who goes into homes knowing that there are people there is a ticking time bomb. Think about it–someone is willing to come into your home–when you are there. Certainly, the intrusion is extremely violative. Moreover, what do you think your average repeat home invader is going to do when confronted by a person in the home? I will say this again. I would fight anyone in my home to the death. To the death. I have young children, and I will defend them with anything that I can get my hands on. These career criminals knew that they would have to deal with people like me–and they obviously prepared for it.
The real tragedy about the Petits’ deaths is that they were preventable. In many other states in this nation those guys, with their histories, would have been gone for good. People like Gideon and SaucyVixen whine about the lack of rehab etc. I am far more concerned with the deaths of innocents. And I think that discounting the risks to society of these types of criminals is appalling.
about 4 years ago
Alec–yes or no, do you dispute that people who repeatedly break into homes when people are in the homes (i.e., not your vacation burglars) are dangerous?
And I think you characterization of “freak” occurrence is a little silly. Let’s say that out of 100 people with these guys’ criminal histories 5 of them would commit a serious crime of violence subsequent to release. I would argue that means that all 100 should never have been released in the first place. I would trade the prevention of 1 rape for the eventually freedom of 100 repeat home invaders. Without hesitation.
about 4 years ago
Still not enough information for me to blame this on parole at all. I don’t know enough about the priors (or their performance/behavior in prison or any other relevant factor), and I don’t believe a home invasion in and of itself – whether people are home or not – has any relationship to the offender’s proclivity to commit a crime like this one. Many offenses – including car jacking – may turn violent suddenly and unexpectedly. I think you’re giving offenders too much credit if you think that all of the consequences of their actions (like having to fight off a family when perhaps they believed they weren’t home or that they could get in and out without waking anyone) are well thought out in advance. If that was true, many of my clients either would not have committed the crime at all or would never have been caught!
But more to the point, I come back to my question – what could parole have done here? The parole board did not have any evidence before it (so far as I know) to refuse these two guys parole. Moreover, the board has no power or authority to keep these guys in prison for the rest of their lives. In other words, although I strongly disagree with the three-strikes approach, at least I understand how that addresses your concern about repeat offenders and your unwillingness to risk another offense in the future. I don’t understand how scrutiny of the parole system gets anybody anywhere. These men were never (until now) facing life sentences, so how was parole to stop them from committing this crime or one like it?
about 4 years ago
One more thing, sorry:
[quote comment="3128"]People like Gideon and SaucyVixen whine about the lack of rehab etc. I am far more concerned with the deaths of innocents. And I think that discounting the risks to society of these types of criminals is appalling.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s fair to imply that we’re ALL not concerned with the deaths of innocent people. I suppose there are those who believe that evil is evil and that it is not possible to rehabilitate people who commit bad acts. But assuming that it is possible, wouldn’t a system that rehabilitates offenders prevent deaths of (and other offenses against) innocent people??
about 4 years ago
They’re not all equally dangerous, Sean. You’re categorizing everyone based on the behavior of, well, 2 people. Repeat offenders are not all similarly situated, to borrow some legalise.
As I said, I believe it is an aggravating factor, either as an element of an offense with more severe punishment or, alternatively, as relevant conduct when determining a sentence. There is greater potential for violence and upon discovery the victims are usually terrified (I was when it happened to me), justifying a higher sentence in some circumstances. But as Gideon pointed out, there are plenty of cases where people flee when discovered in the home. They don’t deserve life in prison without parole just to make you feel better.
I also hope for the sake of consistency you employ that same utilitarian calculus in all areas. So if someone with a single DUI conviction, 5 years later kills another person while drinking and driving, everyone who drinks and drives (at least a second time) goes to prison for life, no parole. Because, you know, they all have the same criminal history as that one guy. Think of all the deaths you would prevent.
In any event, your solution would require astronomical spending and you would just shift the burden to prosecutors, who would have to make more practical charging decisions.
If the prosecutors had wanted to, they could have charged them under the habitual offender statute. If the parole board had wanted to, they could have denied parole. These people were operating with a far better understanding of their potential for criminal activity than you were, but there was nothing to indicate they were a threat (apart from criminal history, which they had already considered).
Ironically, your approach is at odds with the very principle of individualized justice. You would seek, effectively, to punish people based on propensity and the conduct of others, not their own conduct on a given date and time.
about 4 years ago
A couple of things:
1) I really am looking at things on a macro level. Let’s take an example unrelated to these crimes. Let’s say we have a 14 year old convicted of murder. What should the punishment be? I don’t think that we look at what kind of person the 14 year old is to start off with. I think that we should look at the likelihood of reoffense within x number of years for 14 year olds in general. Let’s say we have 100 14 year olds who commit murder, and let’s say that we give them 20 years. My question is how many, of that 100, will go on to commit serious crimes when released. Now perhaps, we as a society say that we shouldn’t throw these kids away, blah blah blah, but keep in mind that some of those “kids” will, to a statistical certainty, commit violent crime upon release. Now, the question is what risk society is willing to tolerate because we, unfortunately, do not have a crystal ball. My argument here is not that we base policy on what these two did. Rather, it’s that we know, or we should know, that people with these types of criminal histories pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of society. That’s why they should have been locked away for life before this.
2) I think Alec’s point about the parole people etc. knowing better than I about how these criminals should have been treated is, on its face, laughable. Look, I don’t know how to be any clearer. People who are willing, repeatedly, to go into homes knowing that people are there (no one argues that these guys were vacation burglars) know that one of the issues that they are dealing with is the people in the house. Any criminologist will tell you that people who do these home invasions are a danger. Any cop will too. It is simply amazing to me that none of you seem to get just how much of a trangression going into a house with a family sleeping in it is. And that people who are willing to do that repeatedly are a risk to do much much more. And that’s my point–it’s not the individuals, certainly there are hardened criminals that have learned their lessons and who would not harm anyone when they get out. The point is that we are dealing with lots of criminals, and we have to make judgments about what kind of risks, on a macro level, they pose. My view is that home invaders, whether they have committed violence or not, have an elevated risk of committing more. The statement that being a home invader has nothing to do with whether they’re gonna rape is foolish. What do you think the average loser criminal is going to do when he has an attractive 17 year old in his grips where he can do with her what he wants. Come on.
3)I think it completely fair to say that you guys are less concerned with innocent victims than I. Rehabilitation for career criminals is a pipe dream on a macro level. How many people, in life, really change their spots? That you link society’s moral right to imprison with this naive idea that we can rehabiliatate a large percentage of these animals is a recipe for the evil suffered by the Petits and a whole lot of other people. Both of these guys should have, long ago, forfeited their freedom for good.
4) You guys seem to have this weird idea that sentencing policies have to be based on aggravating factors etc. No. We lock up for incapacitation reasons. Thus, if certain crimes (home invasion being one of them) are on the whole more dangerous or those who do them pose more of a risk, then we don’t necessarily worry about the home invader who’s really a nice guy and wouldn’t hurt a fly.
5) Someone in here talked about a 15 year old who fled the house once confronted. Yeah, so what. But that’s not the issue. The issue is how many home invaders with years under their belts of home invasions would flee. My guess is that most career home invaders are prepared for the confrontation.
6) I live in a major city. I have come to grips with the fact that someone may decide to try to get me coming into my house late at night so as to rob me and my family in peace. I will die before I give anyone access to my house. That is not an irrational decision. What that means for our discussion is that, assuming that I will have the courage if the situation happens, then I feel that my life is worth trading so that people won’t get a shot at my wife and children at their leisure. These home invaders are dangerous. And hopefully, Connecticut will see fit to change the law such that people with these criminal histories are put away forever.
about 4 years ago
At least you have retreated from sentencing jurisprudence. Macro and micro levels are considered at sentencing. You think that my point about parole officers, etc. is laughable? I take it that you spend hours on end with “career offenders” as you call them? That you are competent to evaluate their potential based on newspaper clippings after the fact? Please Sean, leave rank arrogance out of this. And less concerned with innocent victims? You are on the verge of being tasteless.
I see no point in continuing this. We disagree. Fine.
about 4 years ago
Alec, you are either stupid or blinded by your emotional reaction against law and order types like me.
First of all, newspaper clippings or not, there is no doubt that these guys are career offenders, so the “as you call them” crack is silly.
Second of all, I don’t really care about what the parole officers thought of these guys. I know this: repeat home invaders are very dangerous criminals. So, repeat home invaders at the very least should not be given much chance for parole. I do agree, however, that parole is not the root cause here, but rather the lack of a three strikes type provision.
Third of all, it is obvious to any objective observer that none of you really cares all that much about the risks to society of released criminals. We have the bleating that we should do more for rehab, the bleating that the parole board should ignore the awful crime and the bleating that we cannot consider the dangerousness a class of criminals poses because we need to have individualized justice. Moreover, i was not the one who characterized this as a freak occurrence. Assuredly, it is not–oh gee, a career habitual home invader graduates to rape and murder, yeah, that’s never happened before . . . .
Fourth, drunk driving is a bit different. But we need to target repeat drunk driving offenders and we need to get smart about tiering punishments depending on the level of alcohol. Plus, we have a lot of non-incarceration alternatives (breathalyzers on cars etc.)
about 4 years ago
Gideon, I think this actually points up the opportunity for us workaday bloggers to have a long-term impact on things like how the parole board is covered by pointing out on a regular basis the common, everyday injustices that coexist alongside such horrific mistakes in the public narrative. With respect to Mr. O’Brien, I’m not discounting the victims by saying that, but hoping to refocus parole decisions on everyday public safety and away from the emotionalism of an outlier case. The MSM ONLY covers the parole board when something like this happens, but typically have no clue about how the system really works or what real solutions would look like. For example, all the 3-strikes stuff is politicized foolishness with loads of unintended consequences, but harder to argue if you’re only looking at a heinous case.
I don’t know about CT, but in Texas our parole board is MORE likely to follow release guidelines for violent offenders than for nonviolent ones, meaning violent offenders are MORE likely to be let out when they’re “supposed” to be while nonviolent ones are more often kept past their parole date. So by highlighting those issues, when such things happen we’re able to point out that the REASON dangerous offenders are paroled, at least here, is b/c we’ve more than half the offenders in TX prisons are nonviolent ones.
Defender bloggers with expertise can provide context, but IMO it’s better done in anticipation that such events are inevitable, not only after the fact in defensive mode.
about 4 years ago
The three-strikes stuff is not “political foolishness”, it is effective law enforcement. Both of these criminals, particularly Hayes, should have received life sentences for their crimes before the current one. This is not emotionalism–this is just simple unwillingness to expose society to these risks.
In any event, the penalties for burglary in Connecticut are about to get tougher.
about 4 years ago
Hi Gideon,
While I can see (if not necessarily agree with) your point that the fact that these two got through the system does not necessarily mean the system is broken, I am somewhat curious about the question Sean O’Brien has asked several times on the thread.
If the situation was “reversed”, so to speak, and a pair of innocent men had been convicted and spent long periods in jail based on what seemed to be convincing evidence, would you accept a statement by a district attorney that “This doesn’t show that the system is broken. Shit happens.”?
Or would you say that the fact that such a thing had occured was enough reason to take a long look at the system and see how future recurrences might be prevented?
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="3228"]Hi Gideon,
While I can see (if not necessarily agree with) your point that the fact that these two got through the system does not necessarily mean the system is broken, I am somewhat curious about the question Sean O’Brien has asked several times on the thread.
If the situation was “reversed”, so to speak, and a pair of innocent men had been convicted and spent long periods in jail based on what seemed to be convincing evidence, would you accept a statement by a district attorney that “This doesn’t show that the system is broken. Shit happens.”?
Or would you say that the fact that such a thing had occured was enough reason to take a long look at the system and see how future recurrences might be prevented?[/quote]
It’s a good question. I think there are differences in the two situations, which warrants a review in one and not in the other.
I don’t think the parole system is broken in the way people are saying it is in the aftermath of this incident.
You know what, I’ll make a new post about it and hopefully we can have another lively discussion.