Cheshire killings and parole fallout recap
A lot has happened in the last few days, so after one more new item, here’s a recap of all my posts on this topic.
According to this story in today’s Courant, the younger of the accused, Komisarjevsky was under GPS monitoring for 120 days after his release. The monitoring condition expired 4 days before the incident in Cheshire.
“It is not unusual for people who are leaving prison and are on parole to be monitored for a period of time,” [State Rep.] Lawlor said. “The normal period is 90 days. The officer has the option to shorten it or lengthen it. They opted in this case to lengthen it to 120 days.”
Komisarjevsky kept his curfews and met other conditions of parole, so the bracelet was removed July 19. Lawlor said he believes that Komisarjevsky either would not have been paroled or would have been subject to longer monitoring had parole officials known of his propensity for burglarizing occupied homes at night.
Oh, one more thing: His “prior record” didn’t exist. His sentencing in 2002 was his first brush with the system. His “history of home invasions” was limited to the 12 burglaries that led to his conviction in 2002. Nothing prior to that. So it is a bit misleading to say that parole didn’t have his record. They did. It comprised the offenses for which he was serving a sentence.
I will continue to disagree with the Representative in his assessment there, but this is another indication that parole was doing all it could.
Here is all my coverage on this:
- More on Cheshire killings
- Gov. Rell proposes first changes
- Death charged
- Triple homicide behind calls for review of parole system. Or “Ugh”.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on August 2, 2007 at 7:25 am, and is filed under 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
12 burglaries at night with people in the house should have netted this guy at least 30 years in the slammer.
about 4 years ago
For a first time offender with mental health and sexual abuse issues? I don’t think so.
about 4 years ago
Funny how doing something 12 times qualifies you as a first time offender.
Breaking into a home, at night, when occupants are in the home should net an adult 5 years in jail, at a minimum. If armed, the sentence should be 30 years. If occupants are attacked in any way (even if the burglar is “defending” himself), the sentence should be LWOP.
This is how to deal with home invaders. Well, actually, a better way is for the homeowners to shoot them dead.
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="3400"]Funny how doing something 12 times qualifies you as a first time offender.
Breaking into a home, at night, when occupants are in the home should net an adult 5 years in jail, at a minimum. If armed, the sentence should be 30 years. If occupants are attacked in any way (even if the burglar is “defending” himself), the sentence should be LWOP.
This is how to deal with home invaders. Well, actually, a better way is for the homeowners to shoot them dead.[/quote]
They were all separate counts of the same docket. If you had any concept of how criminal law works, you’d understand that in the plea bargaining process there is give and take. The State asked for 30 after 10; the judge sentenced him to 9, taking into account his “acceptance of responsibility” and co-operation and mental health issues.
It was the first time he was arrested and prosecuted. That, by definition, means that he had no prior record.
If you have no prior record, then in the criminal justice system, you are a first time offender.
First time offenders for burglaries don’t get 30 years.
about 4 years ago
No prior record = First time offender. I understand “that’s how it works”. It’s just funny to take a step back sometimes to see how we get to a place where doing something 12 times equals being a “first time offender”. That’s all. You’re right, I don’t practice criminal law, and I don’t do plea bargains, and I only have a vague understanding of how joinder of charges works, but the idea that someone can violate 12 families like that and spend 9 months in jail for each count is madness. Got it? Madness.
You say that “first time offenders” don’t get that kind of time for burglaries. I beg to differ. Any state with a consecutive sentencing regime could easily hand down such a sentence.
Home invaders are dangerous people. Unfortunately, it took this awful crime to teach people that lesson. It’s too bad that in his previous law-breaking Komisarjevski didn’t encounter an armed homeowner who was a good shot.