Connecticut was fast becoming a scary place to live. As yesterday’s post shows, residents of a small section of Southbury, a suburban town in Connecticut, were becoming increasingly concerned and paranoid with the news that one of their own was about to take in her brother – a convicted sexual offender – upon his release from prison. Mr. David Pollitt is scheduled to be released tomorrow after serving the full length of his sentence and will embark on a torturous journey of five years’ probation.
Residents of that nook of Southbury, rightly concerned and wrongly outraged, embarked on a full-press lobbying of the Governor to keep this from happening. Scarily, she bit. This morning, she wrote a letter to Attorney General Blumenthal asking him if Mr. Pollitt could be confined beyond his legal discharge date.
While recognizing that Mr. Pollitt has served his sentence and that his release and probation are statutorily governed, we also have a duty to ensure that we have left no stone unturned in safeguarding the safety and welfare of the Southbury residents. Numerous children and elderly residents reside in the Fox Run Drive neighborhood. I am asking that you explore immediately the possibility of filing a motion in Superior Court seeking the delay of Mr. Pollitt’s release. This additional time will allow all interested parties to carefully review all possible safety measures that may be implemented to protect the Southbury residents.
There are several, several problems with this request that I intended to outline in full detail, but in light of recent happenings, will only mention briefly:
First, this exhibits a blatant disregard for law in the State of Connecticut and flouts the Constitutions of both the Constitution State and the United States of America. I cannot imagine that Gov. Rell is not adequately advised as to the illegality of her request.
Second, assuming that she is advised as to the illegality of her request, this can be nothing but blatant political pandering. Which is abhorrable abhorrent. You do not play with people’s liberty to further your political goal.
Third, she makes this request of Attorney General Blumenthal, who has zero standing to request changes in the conditions of probation. An appropriate request would have been one made to Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, who I suspect might not have indulged her to the extent the AG did by filing this motion.
Fourth, her request indicates that the State agencies have not had time to evaluate the impact of his release into the community and make adequate preparations to safeguard the community. What, 24 years wasn’t enough to get their act together? [By all accounts, let it be noted, probation has done an excellent job of going out to the community and spending a significant amount of time attempting to assuage the fears of the residents. Paranoia, however, cannot be easily reassured.]
Finally, a half-way house or an in-patient facility is not an alternative form of probation, but an alternative form of incarceration. Mr. Pollitt has fully satisfied his period of incarceration and any such admission to a half-way house or in-patient facility would be the equivalent of keeping him in a correctional facility.
So, as you might know by now, AG Blumenthal did file a motion in New London Superior Court this afternoon, which was, by all accounts, summarily dismissed by Judge Susan Handy. She may not realize it (she probably does), but she has single-handedly saved the rule of law in the “Constitution” state.
Judge Susan Handy told Attorney General Richard Blumenthal that he has no standing to intervene in the case. Blumenthal said he was acting on behalf of Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
[She] said 54-year-old David Pollitt has served his sentence and is entitled to his freedom.
If this motion were granted (or if it is granted on appeal – if they appeal), it will mark the end of the rule of law in Connecticut. What it will signal is that the State has the power to confine individuals beyond their legal sentences for specious reasons.
Gov. Rell has just issued a statement in light of Judge Handy’s ruling:
“I am very disappointed that this reasonable and prudent request was rejected,” she said. “Public safety is our top priority — I empathize completely with the residents of the Fox Run Drive community [in Southbury], and despite this decision I want them to know that everything possible is being done to safeguard their homes and families.
Forgive me if I scoff. I’m sure every community in the State has received such assurances when sex offenders are released to them on a weekly basis.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was pure political pandering, all involved knowing that it was unlawful, unconstitutional and doomed to fail. But at least Rell can tell the good people of Southbury that she tried and that evil judge stopped her.
[quote comment="6633"]There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was pure political pandering, all involved knowing that it was unlawful, unconstitutional and doomed to fail. But at least Rell can tell the good people of Southbury that she tried and that evil judge stopped her.[/quote]
Which makes it worse, in my opinion. It is almost worthy of being called despicable.
[quote comment="6633"]…at least Rell can tell the good people of Southbury that she tried and that evil judge stopped her.[/quote]
You meant “evil activist judge” right?
It’s bad enough that zoning boards work this way.
[quote comment="6640"]
You meant “evil activist judge” right?
It’s bad enough that zoning boards work this way.[/quote]
Which is quite ironic, because she isn’t the most defendant friendly judge in the State.
Believe it or not, I too share your disgust. The government has an obligation to follow the law. To the extent Rell’s request was not lawful (and it doesn’t seem to this non-Ct-lawyer that it is), then she has no business making it. However, the Governor has to be concerned about serial rapists freed. I don’t know what the answer to that is, but twisting the law is not one of them.
What kind of chief executive is she? If you’re gonna say “screw the Constitution” you might as well just do it. She’s the one with all the guns; she can just order Mr. Pollitt’s continued detention. Make him file a writ of habeas corpus to try to get released. Then, what the hell, ignore the court’s order granting habeas release.
Pingback: More on Pollitt and a bit on Crawford and the death penalty | a public defender
[quote comment="6657"]What kind of chief executive is she? If you’re gonna say “screw the Constitution” you might as well just do it. She’s the one with all the guns; she can just order Mr. Pollitt’s continued detention. Make him file a writ of habeas corpus to try to get released. Then, what the hell, ignore the court’s order granting habeas release.[/quote]
I’ll forgo the obligatory Texas and Gov. Bush joke here
It’s just damn scary that anyone can think they have the authority to do that and more so when it’s a Governor.
[quote post="821"]Second, assuming that she is advised as to the illegality of her request, this can be nothing but blatant political pandering. Which is abhorrable. You do not play with people’s liberty to further your political goal.[/quote]
I think you mean “abhorrent”. I’m not sure that “abhorrable” is a word.
[quote comment="6681"]
I think you mean “abhorrent”. I’m not sure that “abhorrable” is a word.[/quote]
Right you are.
I know Florida has a statute which makes politicians individually liable in matters where they illegally obstruct.
Pingback: Is the Attorney General statute unconstitutional? | a public defender
Pingback: Whose Governor is she anyway?
The problem with Pollitt is that he has continually refused to accept his guilt, even after serving those years in prison. He has no remorse!
In his first court case, he only accepted guilt under the Alford Doctrine (meaning he did not have to admit that he was guilty), and was thus pronounced guilty and sentenced to jail,.
Upon getting out of jail, he showed that he was not reformed by going out and continuing to commit violent rapes several times, which included killing one of his victims.
Even now, after his conviction, serving his sentence, and being released, he will not admit that he did anything wrong.
This man is a heinous criminal, the worst kind of criminal to be living in anyone’s neighborhood!
No-one, not even an intelligent lawyer like yourself, can predict when, and what, he will do next!
He’s got to live somewhere. That’s how our system works and that’s how it should work: he’s paid his price to society and that ends the punishment. The only reason we want him to admit his guilt is because it makes us feel better: it doesn’t make a whit of a difference otherwise.
I can’t predict what he will do, just like I can’t predict what you will do or what I will do or what the Pope will do. Surely you’re not suggesting we arrest everyone because anyone is capable of anything!
Give us a break!!!
Unfortunately, you say, “…he’s paid his price to society and that ends the punishment.”!
The problem is that the ‘price’ he paid was not enough!
Besides the several rapes he was convicted, and sentenced for the first time,after he gets out he committed several more, one including a murder.
When someone commits a murder, and shows no remorse, he should serve his full time, and not get out on an early release.
With the early release, he did not “Pay hos Price”!!!
As for predicting: He has shown a proclivity toward violence, rape, and murder!!!
You bleeding hearts think he should have another chance to do it again???!!!
Did you really mean to suggest we keep people imprisoned for the full term based on the argument that an inadequate level of remorse predicts an ability to repeat the offense?
Give us a break indeed.
“INDEED”!
To you “bleeding hearts”:
I only suggest that the “Punishment should Fit the Crime”.
He raped!
He murdered!
AND, HE HAS NO REMORSE!
WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE?
Stop shouting. There’s no murder conviction afaik. Civil discourse is welcome, but otherwise I will delete comments.
I didn’t realize that I was responding to reply to a post nearly 5 and 1/2 years old. My reaction to this was entirely based on the absurd notion that terms of incarceration can be tied somehow to the level of remorse expressed by someone convicted of a crime.
However, a search of Mr. David Pollitt’s conviction yielded no court records of his conviction. At least none available to my meager legal search capabilities.
The most recent news I found on Mr. Pollitt was from November 2008 where he was arrested for a parole violation, but later released because the GPS system used to track his movements falsely alerted authorities of a violation.
Here is what I found:
David Pollitt was convicted on an Alford plea.
Throughout the proceedings he maintained his innocence saying the cases were “matters of mistaken identity”.
Some of the assaults reportedly occurred while Pollitt was free on bond from previous rape charges.
He was implicated in “about” six rapes dating back to 1978 and convicted of “at least” four of those.
There is no murder conviction or any indication he was accused of murder.
He received a sentence of 45 years in prison and was released after serving 24 years. Reduced as part of the “good time” law in effect during his original sentencing. The law, now repealed, allowed time for good behavior.
I am in no position to judge if his punishment fit the crime. That time has come and gone.
I can say this:
Mr. Pollitt’s was accused of multiple sex crimes during an era of public hysteria that fueled a wave of outrageously false convictions.
One of the hallmark characteristics of those (falsely) accused was their refusal to show remorse for their actions. Such refusals often played into the extreme sentences they received.
There is no evidence of recidivism, in any form for over 5 years.
If anything, this case may signal a second look…
Source:
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/David-Pollitt-served-24-years-for-series-of-rapes-114205.php