david pollitt
Whose Governor is she anyway?
Oct 5th
There is no love lost between this blog and thankfully-not-for-much-longer-Governor-Rell. This blog has expended precious bandwith to excoriate the obvious preferential treatment given by the Governor to her precious white suburban constituents, especially in the criminal justice arena.
This is a prime example of why:
“The murders of the Petit family horrified and disgusted us all, almost beyond the ability of words to convey. Today’s verdicts are a measure of justice – but they can never begin to restore the promise lost on that terrible day in July. That grief may ebb over time but it can never be fully expunged.
“I commend Dr. Petit and his extended family for the remarkable strength and dignity they have displayed throughout this agonizing ordeal – which, of course, will continue through the penalty phase, the trial of another suspect and the legal proceedings that are certain to follow. I know that the people of Connecticut will continue to keep the Petit and Hawke families in their thoughts and prayers in the months to come.”
Whether the facts of this case are that much more gruesome than any other case in the State of Connecticut, past and present, can be debated by us until we’re both blue in the face. What is unmistakable, however, is that the chief executive of an entire State has now, on two separate occasions, singled out one particular victim, one particular case to make a political point. I won’t even attempt to joke that if you go to the Governor’s website, you can read all the other press releases she’s issued in individual cases over the years. Because you know there aren’t any.
Does anyone believe that this was the only rape in Connecticut in the last 6 years? Does anyone believe that this was the only murder in Connecticut in the last 6 years? Does anyone believe that this was the only rape and murder in Connecticut in the last 6 years? Does anyone believe that this was the only capital case in Connecticut in the last 6 years? And yet, this is the only case that she’s chosen to insert herself into. (Well, this and the other fiasco in that equally white suburban town where she decided that the rule of law didn’t apply.) Where is the press release decrying the delay in the Bellamy case, in which a mistrial was declared before evidence began, thus ensuring that by the time the case goes to trial, 34 jurors will have been picked?
Whether or not race is an issue in the treatment of this case by the media, whether or not this case is that much different that any other, whether or not this victim is more deserving of praise and admiration and support than the hundreds and thousands others was always debatable. What Governor Rell’s insistence on singling this case out has done is confirm that there is something special about this one case, above all others, that this victim is more victimized than others.
It is disturbing enough that the nameless, faceless, abstract state makes value judgments about the worth of people’s lives through the imposition of the death penalty, but for the temporary face of that State to vocally confirm it, time and again is something that should make us all stop and think.
Ugh. I can’t even be bothered to snark properly. Is it November 2nd already?
A few stray thoughts
Mar 23rd
the metaphor, stupid
Monday was a marathon day at the state legislature, with several criminal justice bills being considered. Two of the most important, in my view, were the bills to eviscerate The Great Writ (see prior post here) and Connecticut’s first attempt at residency restrictions (see previous post here). For those who want to brave through the public hearing, the entire video is here and written testimony submitted can be read here.
[A warning: this post is long, repeats some arguments I've already made and is extremely rude and vitriolic. But if you don't read it, you support terrorists.]
The habeas corpus effective suspension and evisceration bill
Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane testified at length (almost an hour, I think) on the habeas corpus “reform” bill. There were many, many problems with his testimony, but a few things really stuck in my craw. The entire basis for the State’s “suggestions” in the habeas reform bill seemed to be premised on two things: 1) that there is a glut of “frivolous” petitions and courts are overburdened; and 2) by moving the restrictions on the filing of habeas corpus petitions to the “front end”, rather than during the process itself, there will be a lot of weeding out and the load will be lightened.
Both are unfounded. CSA Kane went on for the better part of an hour, trumpeting the vast number of “successive petitions”, before someone on the committee had the good sense to ask him for some numbers. Just what constitutes a successive petition and what does he consider frivolous? Certainly not all petitions that are denied are not frivolous and eventually he had to admit that. Later on, during the testimony of the Deputy Chief Public Defender, we heard that a meager 4 1/2 % of all petitions were “successive”, in that petitioners had filed a prior habeas corpus petition.
But the State’s argument was premised on this straw man (if not outright lie) that the courts were dealing with a deluge of repetitive, frivolous and time consuming merit-less habeas petitions where petitioners were on their 9th or 10th bite at the apple. From what I’ve been told, there is maybe one inmate who is on his 7th or 8th petition, but that’s about it.
The second premise of the state’s position is all the more confusing and confounding.
High-risk sex offenders still have nowhere to go
Dec 22nd
Two years ago (and how time flies!) I wrote about the lack of any real residential inpatient options for high risk sex offenders in Connecticut. As of today, nothing has changed. The man whose case prompted the prior post is set to be released from custody on Christmas eve and – surprise, surprise! – he’s most likely going to end up in a shelter.
And even that’s not certain.
Instead, 52-year-old Ransome Lee Moody will be waiting in line for a bed at Immanuel Baptist Homeless Shelter in New Haven, a place where indigent offenders who have done their time often go for housing when there are no other options.
Now Moody is not a nice guy. Having spent 32 years of his 52 year life behind bars for various sexual and violent crimes, it’s clear that there’s a problem and he’s a danger either to himself or to society. So it would be appropriate if there were a place to house people like him, which would provide them the appropriate treatment and security and allow them to successfully integrate back into society, if possible.
Such a place was envisioned by the legislature – perhaps the only good thing to come out of the wholesale *cough*bullshit*cough* “reforms” to the criminal justice system in the wake of the Cheshire murders.
So long, farewell, don’t let the door hit you on your way out
Nov 10th
[Alternate post titles: So long and thanks for all the blog fodder; This just in: The Law now has a weak pulse]
So, it’s probably unnatural and unhealthy to be so giddy upon learning that Gov. Rell has decided not to seek re-election, but as most of you know, I can’t stand the woman. And that’s putting it mildly. I let out an audible yell yesterday when Ann Nyberg tweeted that she wasn’t going to run. My colleagues looked at me, much like they always do, like I had three heads. So maybe my disdain of the American Idol Governor knows no bounds.
But there’s good reason. After all, she has singlehandedly done so much to create such a disregard for the law and the rule of law, that sometimes I wonder who is worse: the law-breaking “criminals” she sought to protect our white community from or the law-ignoring bureaucrat.
She was the most dangerous of the “tough on crime” pols: sweet, nurturing, grandmotherly. She would lull everyone into sleep with her gentle affect and then decree the most outrageous acts of lawlessness this State has seen this decade.
First, there was Cheshire. Oh boy was there Cheshire. The brutal crimes in a white suburban neighborhood served not only to rouse the Governor from her mid-term siesta, but also had the side-effect of completely blinding her to common sense, and well, the rule of law. So the first thing she decided to do (well, sort of) was ban parole. That lasted for 4 months and resulted in severe overcrowding and a tremendous burden on state resources. That’s when Colin McEnroe coined the moniker “The American Idol Governor“. I still can’t get enough of that. She then proposed some truly scary and not very well thought out “reforms” of the criminal justice system, some of which unfortunately made it into law. Then she wanted CT to have a three-strikes law, in the face of all scientific research on its uselessness. Then came the unhinging, aka, “The David Pollitt Project“. I’m not even going to touch that. And finally, the veto of the death penalty abolition bill.
I write all of this, not to disparage her, but to remind myself and you – voters all – of the absolute effing nonsense we’ve had to put up with these past few years. Will any of the people who’ve announced they’re running for Governor be any better? They almost have to, don’t they, because it can’t get much worse than this.
So while I wish her well in her personal life and hope that her health remains strong, I will not be sad to see her become former Governor Rell. I’m not sure there was a person less equipped to take on that job.
And now, on to the big question. What needs to be done? The first response is obvious: abolish the death penalty. But there are so many more things that need to be changed about the criminal justice system in our State. In my mind, there’s only one candidate who is qualified to do that. So, you guys can be the first to hear it: I am hereby announcing my candidacy for the Governor of the State of Connecticut and I will be running on the Smart on Crime platform for the “It must be easy; she did it for so long” party.
More details about the, well, details of my platform will follow in subsequent posts. I’m now going to go and do a cartwheel.
Gideon’s suggestions for reducing the budget deficit in CT
Feb 9th
I know no one asked, but I am nothing if not a bloviator, so these are my suggestions for reducing (even in small part) the current budget deficit that CT faces. In the style of a letter to our Governor.
Dear Governor Rell,
You and I haven’t always gotten along. In fact, it’s no secret that I don’t like your views on criminal justice and your disregard for the “rule of law”. But these are strange times and strange times make strange bedfellows – or in our case, strange letter writers and recipients.
So, in the spirit of bi-partisanship so convincingly advocated for by our C-in-C, I propose the following changes that could save the State some money, even if it isn’t much. Perhaps it can save a job or two.
Residents of Southbury, CT
Oct 24th
Rest easy, you’re not alone: Roseville, CA has its David Pollitt too. Read the story, then go back and read some of the stories surrounding Pollitt’s release. They’re eerily similar. Well, except Schwarzenegger isn’t piping in trying to keep this guy in jail. Yet. Maybe Gov. Rell left a message for him.
Time to eat crow, Madam Governor
Sep 12th
It's okay, you can eat crow
It happened. I’m just surprised that it was this quick. After yesterday’s frantic call by the Governor for David Pollitt to be reincarcerated, it is fitting that today the prosecutor withdrew the warrant and dropped charges.
New London States Attorney Michael Regan told Judge Susan B. Handy that GPS records probation officials relied on when drafting the warrant for Pollitt’s arrest were incorrect.
“The GPS system was not functioning properly at the time the reading was taken,” Regan said. The disclosure left egg on the faces of judicial officials and government leaders, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who had demanded that Pollitt be returned to prison. On the way out of court, Pollitt, who had denied he left his sister’s yard, quipped to a probation official, “Kind of embarrassing, isn’t it?”
Heh. He’s funny. That’s exactly what the family said happened. A malfunctioning GPS. No case. Welcome back home, Mr. Pollitt.
This would have been the perfect opportunity for the Governor to atone for yesterday’s rush to judgment. But we in Connecticut have come to not expect anything. Instead of apologizing to Mr. Pollitt and the citizens of Connecticut for her embarassing rush to judgment, she focused on the problems with the GPS system:
“It is disappointing and frankly maddening to learn that the GPS technology used to monitor Mr. Pollitt was not working properly. We use GPS tracking for a reason,” Rell said. “In fact, we pay quite a bit of money for it ? but it’s not about the money, it’s about safety. There is no excuse for the failure to track an offender.
“This incident raises a number of troubling questions: Is the GPS system we are using reliable? Can we be sure this will not happen again?” Rell continued. “And what safeguards are in place to let us know when a problem arises? The reliability of this technology is absolutely essential. Both the Judicial Branch and the Board of Pardons and Paroles need to address these questions and ensure the accurate tracking of all offenders wearing monitoring systems.
“Frankly”, I find this “maddening”. Instead of ackowledging her mistake, she’s placing blame elsewhere and asking for others to be held accountable. When will you be held accountable, Mme Gov.? When will you apologize to the rest of the citizens of the State and show that you care about more than just the rich white folk that live in Southbury. I may not have voted for you, but you’re still the Governor of Connecticut, not white suburbia.
Oh, but there’s more. It’s not like she’s learned anything from this:
At the first violation of his probation conditions ? no matter how minor ? he should be remanded to prison.”
Yes, continue to show the citizens of this State that you care nothing about due process or the judicial system.
This was an opportunity to make amends. Unfortunately, I think she’s underestimating the anger this will foster in the non-suburbian communities in CT.
This was a time to eat crow, Governor, not dig your head further in the sand. Tsk, tsk.
David Pollitt rearrested; Governor has opinion
Sep 11th
What has happened is that David Pollitt has been re-arrested, because he allegedly went outside the monitoring area of his GPS device.
So, now, the political football has been inflated again and the Governor speaks out, urging his incarceration.
I realize that this would be a violation of probation, but it really, really, really bothers me that there doesn’t seem to be any concern about the rule of law and the process.
Who needs a hearing, a determination by a judge, actual evidence, facts, witnesses. I know we have a phrase for that in the law. Due….do…due…something or the other.
No, this is the Constitution State. Let’s say that one more time. Lather, rinse, repeat. We’re good. Carry-over goodwill or something.
This is a man that the Governor sought to have illegally confined beyond the length of his prison sentence. She was unsuccessful. So now that this technical violation has been charged, it seems that she has felt it appropriate to assume the role of judge, jury and sentencer (Yeah, I made up that word).
It’s not like there’s another side to the story:
His family said he was in his back yard, and the whole issue comes from a faulty GPS reading.
Family members said they don’t understand why the governor is getting involved without knowing all of the facts. They said Rell should wait until all of the details come out.
Of course, in this rush-to-judgment and “tough on crime” State, who cares what these criminals have to say.
I’m sorry if this is a harsh rant, but. I feel rather disgusted. Disgusted that there is no regard for the process; for the justice system.
She wrote to the Chief State’s Attorney, urging his incarceration (putting aside the ethical problems for Atty. Kane with any such request):
In a letter to Kane dated today, Rell wrote: “As you know, I vigorously opposed Mr. Pollitt’s release into the community last year. However, the court freed him, causing widespread and justifiable concern among the residents of the Southbury neighborhood.
“Given Mr. Pollitt’s record of violence and his apparent inability — or unwillingness — to live within the terms of his release, the safety of the community demands nothing less than his return to prison,” Rell wrote.
No, Madam Governor, WADR, the Court did not free him. His sentence expired. You know, that part of any incarceration, where the time for which he has to be confined runs out. You know, that part of the rule of law that says you cannot hold him any longer. It is absolutely appalling that a Court had to waste its resources to intervene to remind some that we don’t incarcerate people when there is no legal basis to do so.
I guess she’s able to discern between an allegation and a conviction, because she uses the word “apparently”. So then why act as if it is a done deal? Is this what the leader of a State is supposed to do? To pass judgment on a citizen before the process has been completed? To make snap judgments without any evidence or facts or without all the information? She wields a position of power – I hope she doesn’t make all her decisions in this cursory manner.
Look – he very well may have violated his probation. I don’t know. But neither do you and neither does the Governor. Let’s withhold judgment until there’s a hearing.
Why do I get sucked in like this……sigh.
(I will note that the Governor sent no such letter to anyone after the shootings in Hartford or the resulting curfew. A tale of two cities indeed.)
(Also, who here is actually surprised that he was picked up for something. I’m surprised that it took this long.)
The criminal justice paradox in Connecticut
Jun 8th
This is a post that has been in the making for a long time. It is incomplete and at times will be incoherent. These are questions, however, that I think are worth exploring and attempting to answer. So bear with me on this Sunday as I ramble.
Anyone who has followed this blog for the past year will no doubt be aware of several high profile criminal justice stories in CT: the Cheshire incident, the David Pollitt incident and the more recent New Britain incident. Starting with Cheshire, reform of the criminal justice system has been on the minds of many residents of this State, mostly pushed forward by our esteemed legislature and Governor. We were once on the path to reducing our prison population and now we are growing and bursting at the seams with no relief in sight.
Prison sentences have been beefed up to unimaginable levels in the name of public safety, rehabilitation programs have been abandoned and common sense no longer prevails.
Yet there are people who do not feel this is enough. Read the comments to any Courant article on criminal justice and you will see that there are people who feel that any sentence short of life is inappropriate.
This State, fueled by the vote-seeking legislators, has become gripped in what might be the biggest “tough on crime” wave in the country.
The paradox, however, is something that I have long suspected.
Judge gets award for upholding the law
May 3rd
Alternative title: “Our standards are so low”.
Remember David Pollitt? [Previous posts here, here, here and here] Yeah, he’s the guy whose release from prison after maxing out from his sentence had his rich neighbors in an uproar. They didn’t want him living in their cul-de-sac, so they staged protests and feverishly dialed into “Idol Governor”, simultaneously pressing 0 for the operator (I guess 1 for complete abrogation of the rule of law and 2 for abandonment of common sense weren’t enough. They went straight for the operator Governor).
So the Governor, as any good Governor would do, stepped in and asked the chief prosecutor attorney general to intervene to see “if we could have this here guy locked up longer than his sentence”, because well, “I’m the Guv’nor dammit and I should be able to”^.
Thankfully, the only person who could actually make Mr. Pollitt go back to jail remembered that there’s something called the law, which is written in these things called books, to which we do something called follow.
Judge Susan Handy was rather skeptical of the legal basis for this “request” from the Governor and reached back into obscure legalese to pull out a rarely heard term called “Illegal”. Never heard of it.
Anyway, whatever this “illegal” action was, it was coupled with some other bizarre phrase known as “standing”. I guess if you aren’t standing, you can’t do something illegal. My head is spinning.
[insert deafening silence, followed by sound of crickets chirping]
So. The point of this nonsense post is that this past Thursday was the 50th Anniversary of Law Day. Judge Handy received an award from the New London County Bar Association. In keeping with the tradition that lawyers are the most uncreative people on Earth, who have an affinity for campy, cheesy names, the award was called the Liberty Bell Award. Because, I guess, someone rang Liberty’s bell.
“I am both humbled and, I have to say, completely overwhelmed, to receive an award for simply doing the job you entrusted me to do,” said Handy, who was appointed to the bench 15 years ago and serves as presiding judge for criminal matters in the New London judicial district.
Let’s be clear: this post is not about Judge Handy at all. She obviously did the right thing. What disturbs me is that doing the right thing now leads to awards and needs to be recognized. How skewed has our notion of justice become that a judge who follows the law and does the most obvious thing has be to feted.
“Let’s imagine if Judge Handy had not ruled as she did,” [Chief Court Administrator Judge Barbara] Quinn said. “A man who had completed his prison sentence would have been unjustly held. The neighbors and some politicians would have rejoiced, along with many members of the public. I would submit to you, however, that the damage to the constitutional rights of every member of the public would have been shaken to the core.”
Why must we imagine? It should be unthinkable that she would rule any other way. This should have passed silently in the night – yet now we have to beat it over people’s heads that she did the right thing.
Congratulations, Judge Handy and I hope this keeps giving you the courage to do the right thing. What worries is me is now I don’t know how many judges would have done the opposite.
^Obviously she did not say that. I don’t know what she said. That was an attempt at humor.
Pollitt neighbors want tax break
Feb 21st
Remember David Pollitt? (Previous posts here, here, here and here.) After trying to block his move into their neighborhood, and failing, residents are now trying to get their money back. Literally. They’ve asked the town to reduce the property tax assessment of their homes by as much as 17%.
Carolyn Nadeau, president of the Connecticut Association of Assessing Officers, said the request may be the first of its kind in the state.
“I’ve never had an instance like this,” she said. “Any number of times there are distractions that people feel negatively impact their property values, such as unsightly blight, but we haven’t seen this.”
The company that revalued all properties in Southbury last fall rejected the residents’ plea for help. The new values took effect Oct. 1 and Pollitt didn’t move to the neighborhood until Oct. 12.
It’s tough. My initial reaction is to roll my eyes, but only because I was quite disgusted with the nonsense that went on the first time around. I can understand that their property values probably have taken a bit of a hit, and they’re trying to do something, anything about it. But they’re not the only ones. Residents throughout the state have to deal with this as sex offenders (and other offenders) move into their neighborhoods. What about your friendly neighborhood DUI repeat offender? I’d be worried about that kind of offender weaving around my street, drunk, knocking pedestrians off.
What will happen when other registries go online? Will it just suppress the housing market as a whole? While prices go down across the board? Or will people remember that ex-convicts have always lived amongst us and move on? What else can be done?
More on Pollitt and a bit on Crawford and the death penalty
Oct 12th
As Southbury gears for David Pollitt’s release today [previous post here], the Courant has this fine piece about the impact of the neighborhood’s uproar on his sister.
“I really shouldn’t come out and talk with you because we’ve received so many hate letters and calls already, and you might say what I look like,” Rosengren said Thursday. She spoke by phone to a reporter standing at the end of her driveway, but refused to come to the door. “I just think the public should hear someone with the courage to say: `I love my brother dearly. He’s family.’”
The day the law almost died: the David Pollitt story
Oct 11th
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.
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.
recent comments