Archive for October 10, 2007
24 years in jail is not enough
Oct 10th
Apparently. Last week, the CT media reported that David Pollitt, convicted in the late 70′s of sexual assault was finally being released from prison after serving out his sentence. Justice done, you say.
I piss my pants, say neighbors. They don’t want him in their community. Unfortunately for them, his sister lives in their neighborhood and she was the only member of his family kind enough to take him in after his release.
Neighborhood groups have been gathering at a house across the street from the one where Pollitt will live. They have called town officials, the governor’s office, and state agencies like the Department of Adult Probation and Department of Correction. Some have signed an online petition to keep Pollitt in prison, and many have told the media of their fears.
I wish I had a smiley face that puked. I’d use it now. Mr. Pollitt has served his sentence. Day for day, actually. No parole. He did get “good time” per the statutes in effect at the time of his sentencing, but so did everyone else.
Here’s the really sucky part:
The family’s attorney said Tuesday that neighbors put up a sign in Rosengren’s yard Monday and accosted her when she went to her mailbox. He said Pollitt, preparing to leave the Osborn Correctional Center in Somers on Friday, has heard of some of the controversy and has had second thoughts.
Here’s an idea: Move out.
Idiocy.
Yes, my tone is informal and I’ll probably regret being so rude tomorrow, but you know what… f*** it. This is ludicrous. I don’t know Mr. Pollitt personally, but I do know that after serving 24 years for his crimes, he deserves to go home.
What should the state’s responsibility be?
Oct 10th
Not too much else is happening and I’m still hung up on solving the revolving door of parole, so here’s a poll. What is the solution to this problem and as part of the solution, what do you believe should be the extent of the state’s involvement?
Should the state’s role be limited to incarceration and minimal effort at rehabilitation? Should the state be required to provide enough spots in programs for all inmates? Should the State have to go a step further and ensure that released inmates do not re-offend by providing them employment for a limited period, till they get back on their feet?
Clearly, some people can make it on their own on the outside. Maybe they have been convicted of minor offenses, maybe they have strong family support and jobs waiting for them. A greater number of inmates, however, don’t have a hope. No job, no employable skills, no family and no money. Who, then, should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that they do not re-offend? It would be in everyone’s interests that they stay on the right side of the law (well, except maybe corrections).
Make your choice (and explain in the comments if you feel like it).
[poll=16]
Image license info here.


recent comments