I think we can all understand feeling uneasy and anxious about a person who has been convicted of numerous sex assaults moving into the neighborhood. However, I do not in any way think that the natural visceral reaction to the news justifies what has gone on. In fact, I find it to be an unacceptable, distasteful and ugly display of humanity. I know that’s offensive to those people who have participated in activities that fall just short of lynching Mr. Pollitt and his family, but I don’t believe the rest of us should pander to that kind of hysterical display of cruelty and ignorance. I’m incredibly angry and disappointed that our governor and attorney general also lack the decency to handle the situation with dignity and sensitivity to all parties involved.

I find it especially curious for those in the neighborhood to complain that Mr, Pollitt’s arrival has in some way ruined their community, or to fault his sister for somehow doing the same. Now, in theory, the Pollyanna in me wants to believe that even in today’s world we can achieve some sense of communal affinity and loyalty - that we’re willing to help our neighbors and do what’s right for the sake of the community, which I might add, is made up and only as good as the people in it. Ms. Rosengren is and has been a member of the Southbury community. And now, she and her brother are in need of help and support. Her neighbors have reacted by harassing and ostrasizing her. So, who has ruined the sense of community exactly?

I understand that this man has been convicted of doing horrible things. But we do not know him, and neither do the people in the Southbury community. We may think we knew a thing or two about him when he was convicted of these crimes (specious knowledge at best), but 24 years later, we simply have no idea who this man is or what he is capable of.

Again, I do understand feeling uneasy, skeptical, and cautious. But the fact is, we cannot keep everyone locked up forever. I personally believe that good people can do bad things and that people can be rehabilitated. I have no idea if this is the case with Mr. Pollitt, but I believe we should give him another chance. Whether you believe those things of not, however, as a practical matter, we just can’t lock people up forever. So, the question then becomes - are we, as a community, part of the problem or the solution when it comes to rehabilitating people who have made horrible errors in judgment?

Although I think it an exceptionally difficult task and a large moral responsibility, we, as a community, should do what we can safely do to help our neighbors in times of need, not make their lives infinitely more difficult. For if Ms. Rosengren or Mr. Pollitt should slip up along the way, are we not also to blame for making an already arduous task impossible?

Whatever other people’s feelings might be, harassing and threatening her sister is a short step away from actually doing anything and then they’ll have two criminals living on that street.

Ms. (I am assuming here) Kay, thank you for your comment. I agree that perhaps that nook is not the same carefree nook it once used to be; yet I think the use of terms like “monster” and “precious family” do nothing to further the conversation.

Mr. Pollitt’s move does not signal the end of tranquility in their neighborhood; nor should it. What it should do is remind people to be more vigilant and in a sense, yes, remind people of the harsh realities of life.

[quote]Now, because of another family’s lack of concern for the overall well-being of their community, they are forced to suffer. My sister-in-law has taken your thoughtful advice and is packing today to get out of there. She is doing this amidst extensive renovations that began several months ago. Renovations that they hesitantly invested in to make their home a better place for their children.[/quote] That is her choice and obviously one that she chose to make. That is unfortunate, because I think it is unnecessary. That street is not the only street in the State where there are sex offenders and it is sad that she feels like that is the only solution.

However, I disagree with your contention that simply by providing a home for a member of her “precious family”, Ms. Rosengren has displayed a disregard for the neighborhood, nor that it should be a concern. As long as Mr. Pollitt behaves himself like a civilized human being and a productive, law-abiding member of society, no one should have reason for complaint.

[quote]Their careful planning, their concern for bettering their children’s lives in this home… all down the toilet. Yes, they will “move out.” What else can they do? My sister-in-law is concerned for her safety as well as her children’s, even if this scumbag isn’t a child predator, he is potentially a danger to her. Even locked up in his house with supervision, he is free to watch the comings and goings of her family across the street. Not a comfortable way to live, under the watchful eye of a bored, convicted criminal. She is terrified.[/quote]

What can she do? Well, obviously she has two choices: stay or go. She has chosen the latter. She could also have stayed and realized that people do get reformed; that the probation conditions are extremely strict; that no matter where you go - to work, to live - you are surrounded by products of the criminal justice system.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. Pollitt will not be “bored”. This is an individual who will the sunrise for the first time in 24 years. There are plenty of things that will keep him occupied for the near future, not the least of which will be gainful employment.

[quote]I do agree that he cannot be kept in prison longer than he was sentenced for, but I also believe that there has to be a better alternative than this. What if he didn’t have a family to go home to? Is it really necessary for his family to ruin the lives of all the families around them? Nobody else wanted him, that’s what happens when you hurt people viciously like he did. It’s not his sister’s place to force him on the innocent people of this community.[/quote]

I’m glad you recognize that any legal system has to provide for an end to an inmate’s sentence and a prohibition from keeping him incarcerated further. Consider the scenario where he didn’t have family. Would you really feel safer in your town knowing that he lived in a half-way house, with no structure, with no family support, with no one to rely on?

Or is it just that he’s moving into your neighborhood? Would you care if he moved into his sister’s house across town?

Consider that perhaps the rest of his family didn’t want to take him in because of the very reaction that Ms. Rosengren’s neighborhood has had. Not everyone has the fortitude to deal with that.

Let us all finally remember that Mr. Pollitt has, as of yet, done nothing to any of the people living on that street. Any ruining of lives is, at this point, a creation of their fears.

[quote]Yeah, idiocy. Yeah, move out. Rich that you can be so cavalier. You’re not being forced to uproot your family. You’re not going to lose tens-of-thousands of dollars that you spent on a home that you decided would be worth the extra expense because it was on a cul-de-sac, in a safe neighborhood with good schools. You’re not going to lose all the extra money and sweat equity spent on renovating a house so that it would be more comfortable for your family in the long run. You have nothing to lose on your high horse of constitutional rights at the expense of potential victims!

Why don’t you use your knowledge and experience to come up with suggestions for a better way instead of insulting the victims of this unfortunate turn of justice?[/quote]

Could my tone have been better? Absolutely. I acknowledge as much in my original post. If you’d like some more civilized fare, try my more recent offerings here, here and here.

The rest of your comment is a rant and I respect that. Thanks for commenting.

Now, because of another family’s lack of concern for the overall well-being of their community, they are forced to suffer. My sister-in-law has taken your thoughtful advice and is packing today to get out of there. She is doing this amidst extensive renovations that began several months ago. Renovations that they hesitantly invested in to make their home a better place for their children.

Their careful planning, their concern for bettering their children’s lives in this home… all down the toilet. Yes, they will “move out.” What else can they do? My sister-in-law is concerned for her safety as well as her children’s, even if this scumbag isn’t a child predator, he is potentially a danger to her. Even locked up in his house with supervision, he is free to watch the comings and goings of her family across the street. Not a comfortable way to live, under the watchful eye of a bored, convicted criminal. She is terrified.

I do agree that he cannot be kept in prison longer than he was sentenced for, but I also believe that there has to be a better alternative than this. What if he didn’t have a family to go home to? Is it really necessary for his family to ruin the lives of all the families around them? Nobody else wanted him, that’s what happens when you hurt people viciously like he did. It’s not his sister’s place to force him on the innocent people of this community.

Yeah, idiocy. Yeah, move out. Rich that you can be so cavalier. You’re not being forced to uproot your family. You’re not going to lose tens-of-thousands of dollars that you spent on a home that you decided would be worth the extra expense because it was on a cul-de-sac, in a safe neighborhood with good schools. You’re not going to lose all the extra money and sweat equity spent on renovating a house so that it would be more comfortable for your family in the long run. You have nothing to lose on your high horse of constitutional rights at the expense of potential victims!

Why don’t you use your knowledge and experience to come up with suggestions for a better way instead of insulting the victims of this unfortunate turn of justice?

What you fail to realize (assuming Pollitt’s claims of innocence are bogus) is that the serial rapist in a very real sense made his bed. Serving 24 years in the can does not erase the simple fact that this animal forced women to have sex with him, a very ugly and invasive act. He doesn’t “deserve” anything, and he should be thankful for liberal sentencing policies which are allowing him to walk the streets.

And that’s why your lame attempt at justifying your position fails miserably. Your argument originally had nothing to do with criminal law–it had to do with the reaction of people to the presence of a criminal in their neighborhood and your cavalier dismissal of their concerns. No one in their right mind wants to live near or next door to a serial rapist. No one. And for you to elevate his moral (as opposed to legal) claim to be able to live where he wants over the concerns of the people who have to bear the burden of living near him is, quite frankly, morally obtuse.

Yes, the bottom line is that he has served his time. And yes, he has to be able to live somewhere. But that nasty reality does not make people have to like it. Nor does it prevent them from, in no uncertain terms (short of breaching the law) complaining to the woman bringing this animal into her home.

Now, I have to admit, to a certain extent I admire this woman’s courage, and I very well understand “family”.

A much better post would have noted the reality of his release and the unfortunate effect it is going to have on his new neighbors.

In any event, without knowing Connecticut law, I would have to agree with you that this guy is legally entitled to be free. I am pro-law. I just understand that people don’t want to live next to a serial rapist. Perhaps you do.

If someone like that were moving into my neighborhood, I would tell him in no uncertain terms that if he touched my wife or kids that I would trust a jury of my peers.

I hope this guy can be a productive member of society and that he never hurts a fly. Unfortunately, someone may pay for the overly lenient policies of the past. Forgive the people of that neighborhood for not wanting to be one of them . . . . oh yes, that’s right, they can move. What an arrogant and nasty thing to say. Why don’t you let this prick move in with you./[/quote]

The point is, SPO, that this blog isn’t about “showing that I care about these people”. This blog is about my opinions on criminal law events and decisions in the State. So forgive me if I don’t “present both sides”. This is the wrong place if you’re looking for that.

Saying that they can move is just as arrogant and nasty as saying that this guy is a predator and doesn’t deserve to live with his sister.

Let’s not forget that he was not convicted of sexual assault on minors; yet that is how he is being portrayed.

In any event, without knowing Connecticut law, I would have to agree with you that this guy is legally entitled to be free. I am pro-law. I just understand that people don’t want to live next to a serial rapist. Perhaps you do.

If someone like that were moving into my neighborhood, I would tell him in no uncertain terms that if he touched my wife or kids that I would trust a jury of my peers.

I hope this guy can be a productive member of society and that he never hurts a fly. Unfortunately, someone may pay for the overly lenient policies of the past. Forgive the people of that neighborhood for not wanting to be one of them . . . . oh yes, that’s right, they can move. What an arrogant and nasty thing to say. Why don’t you let this prick move in with you./