Kill Them If Convicted, But That's Still Not Enough by Doug Wrenn

Kill Them If Convicted, But That's Still Not Enough

By Doug Wrenn

July 30, 2007

In our country, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I firmly believe in that ideal. I also believe that same standard should absolutely be both objectively and aggressively applied to Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, but if convicted of the heinous atrocities with which they are charged, both men should be dispatched with about as little reluctance as one would exercise in disposing of a rabid animal.

For the benefit of anyone on vacation in a cave while this local story saturated national news all week, both men are accused of a home invasion and robbery of the Petit family of Cheshire. In the course of that crime, Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters, Hayley and Michaela Petit, ages 17 and 11, were tied up and brutally murdered. The mother and the younger daughter were also sexually assaulted. Dr. William Petit, Jr. was savagely beaten, but he was able to escape from the allegedly torched home, still engulfed in fire as the two allegedly escaping perpetrators rammed a Cheshire police cruiser before being surrounded and arrested at gunpoint by Cheshire police officers. Both Komisarjevsky, 26 and Hayes, 44, have extensive police records, especially Hayes. Both men were out on parole at the time of the incident and police now believe they may also be implicated in some recent burglaries in Cheshire. New Haven State's Attorney, Michael Dearington, has announced that he intends to seek the death penalty for both men, now facing 41 charges, according to a July 27th front-page article in The New Haven Register, by Phil Helsel. Considering the magnitude and widespread notoriety of this story, you liberal do-gooders might want to buy you candles now for the inevitable and seemingly obligatory anti-death penalty vigil. I wonder how many of you compassionate progressives will light a candle for the Petit family.

Of course, for the latter to occur, you pompous, pontificating pillars of purity would first have to enter a church, and we wouldn't want any of you to break out in hives, after all, we all know you liberals despise religion but are all nevertheless, "spiritual," whatever that trendy gobbledygook is supposed to mean. Too many of these anti-death penalty bleeding hearts lack credibility for me to even respect. Here are a bunch of well meaning, but loopy souls who will stay up outside all night, often in freezing temperatures, and with hot candle wax burning their hands, to save some cretin who would slit his own mother's throat, yet these blubbering blowhards vehemently advocate the alleged right of a woman to murder her own baby in what should be the safest place on earth, the womb, when that baby, unlike the cause celebre cretin on death row, is as completely innocent as he or she is vulnerable.

To those who claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent, I challenge your fuzzy math. Most criminals are recidivists. Only one man on earth has ever been resurrected, and He was perfect, anyway, unlike all the rest of us. Kill a recidivist and "TILT," game over. Some also claim that crooks don't discern a death sentence before committing a crime. Wrong again. As we know from Professor John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, cities, states and counties where gun ownership is protected, encouraged and in some cases, even mandatory, violent crime is extremely low, whereas violent crime is through the roof in regions in which the citizenry is disarmed. Several years ago, some evil whacko in Los Angeles shot up a private Hebrew elementary school. Why that school? Because, as he later told police, other schools he had previously scoped out had visible armed security. These mutants might not care if one crime could get them 5 years, whereas another one could get them 10 years, but don't tell me these gutless punks aren't afraid of dying.

More than once, I have had debates with "Cafeteria Catholics" of my faith, who champion abortion, but point blame at me because I favor the death penalty. I cringe every time I hear that the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. That is simply not true. The Catholic Church upholds the death penalty in cases in which there are no or inferior alternatives to safely and effectively separating a brutal killer from society. However, the Church also claims that such justifiable circumstances are rare. "Rare"? I would encourage our Church leaders to take a closer look at the farce that we call a criminal justice system in Connecticut.

A jewelry store robber, upon release, revisited and killed the jeweler who identified and testified against him in Waterbury in the mid 1970's. Russell and Adrian Peeler forever silenced Witnesses 8 year-old Leroy "B.J." Brown and his mother, Karen Clarke were murdered in Bridgeport in 1997 when they wouldn't back down from threats intended to silence them. And then we have a joke called a Judiciary Committee in the General Assembly, co-chaired by "Iron Curtain" Mike Lawlor (D-East Haven), who was revealed by former state senator and radio talk show host, Tom Scott, of formerly being a prosecutor known to favor crooks. Since then, Iron Curtain Mike has stood on his own two well established socialist feet, harassing police over chasing suspects, attempting to get priests to reveal sacred confessions from penitents, refusing to enact harsher penalties against repeat pedophiles, and imposing vaguely written laws that incriminate law abiding gun owners when victims of burglaries, and raising the roof when then Governor John Rowland and Corrections Commissioner John Armstrong worked a deal whereby Virginia would house some of Connecticut's prison inmates, and on the dirty laundry list goes. On a recent local radio talk show, current Waterbury Mayor and former state legislator, Mike Jarjura expressed his frustration, and cited that he has personally seen an atmosphere in the state capital of liberal (unnamed) legislators who actually have an adversarial attitude to prosecutors who come to testify on pending legislation that makes life any tougher for the bad guys. I am a practicing Catholic, but I'm no fool, either. When the state of Connecticut can demonstrate that it can truly protect its citizenry from our lower elements, then I, too will oppose capital punishment, but until such time, given the opportunity, I would just assume hold a "Going Out of Business Sale," by cleaning out all of death row and sticking the needle into each and every one of these filthy rats myself, and then fumigating their cells afterward. Then I'd go home, have a bowl of cereal, go to bed and sleep like a baby. Even in a Judeo/Christian country, which, like it or not, we have, we do not have to make ourselves vulnerable sheep to the carnivorous wolves around us. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not to lie down and give ourselves up for dead.

Much else has to change, but I am as realistic as I am pessimistic that it will. We just don't have the heart. This softheaded liberal bastion just doesn't have what it takes. Compared to us, jellyfish are rock solid. Sadly, there must be many more Petits, and even then, I am doubtful of change. The same clueless, apathetic, liberal idiots from East Haven who keep sending Mike Lawlor back to Hartford every two years are but a microcosm of the vast throngs of other clueless, liberal idiots who make up the majority of this state's other lemmings and sheep, with typical utopian myopia and sheer denial of even considering the long term, and often catastrophic ripple effects of their knee-jerk, fantasy land, warm and fuzzy "logic."

Gun stores are now seeing a small surge in sales. Why? Did the Cheshire incident rock people that much? Did they happen to see Osama bin Laden in that same cave in which they must have been hibernating? Granted, while the Petit tragedy is the most horrific, home invasions make the news all the time in our state. Too many mini-van driving, latte drinking, soccer Mom (and Dad) type suburbanites in this state foolishly believe it can never happen to them or in their little pristine, middle class, hum-drum, white bread community. And yet, many more out there still refuse to purchase the ultimate equalizer and learn how to properly and safely protect themselves, despite the recurring statistic of approximately two million Americans saving themselves and others from violent crime every year, and in most cases, without even having to fire a shot. But these are the folks who are afraid of guns, but apparently not afraid of home invaders, or they simply "don't want to hurt anyone." Burglar alarms ands calling 911 will get you a cop in 5-10 minutes on average, assuming they're not all tied up elsewhere. How long do you think it takes to slice a throat, bash a skull, and yes, pull a trigger? For those who don't wish to hurt anyone, does that then mean that getting hurt, or worse, is somehow better? And for you parents, what about your kids? How willing are you to risk their safety for your own fears and insecurities? Furthermore, what good are citizens who are willing to own, properly train on, and when necessary, use guns, when we have a governor and a legislature that are dead set against them?

Then there are the guilt mongers. I'm already hearing about racism because the vanilla skin, upper middle class Petits of Cheshire made national news, when minorities getting offed in the north end of Hartford, the Hill, Newhallville or Fair Haven neighborhoods of New Haven, or some of the other infamous "Wild West" shooting galleries on a nightly basis are forgotten by time the newscast covers weather and sports. First, it's desensitization. These lowlifes get offed every night. Frankly, I find such news tedious and boring. Second, yes, I said "lowlifes." Most of these cretins, barring the few legitimate exceptions of innocent bystanders who are in the wrong place at the wrong time when these cockeyed marksmen "spray and pray," are gangbangers and drug dealers. It's a rather simple rule, really; play with fire, get burnt. I shed about as many tears for these dead vermin as I do lured mosquitoes popping to their demise in a zapper. Then there's the race card: "The Petits are white. No one would care if they were black or Latino." Wrong again. More of our prejudice is directed, even if subconsciously, at class more than race. A few years back, a successful, middle class black woman with a very nice home was murdered in a residential West Haven neighborhood and that made big news. Race has really nothing to do with it. We get desensitized to violence in urban slum neighborhoods, which are mostly comprise of minorities, although the very decent people in such neighborhoods are often unfairly also painted with the same broad brush as their underclass, sociopath, bottom feeder neighbors. We get desensitized to the incessant violent crime in urban slums by pond scum onto pond scum, and speaking for only myself, no, I don't really care. Actually, they're all doing us a big favor, except for when these rocket scientists miss and hit some poor innocent bystander. But as many news accounts and testimonials of many friends and associates of the Petits have verified, all four family members were loving, generous people who were decent, kind, charitable and extremely giving to the community and to others less fortunate than them. Their suffering is absolutely senseless, and I would be saying the same thing if the Petits were black, purple, Spanish speaking or Swahili. It's not about race. It's about someone who is innocent getting hurt for no sane reason, vs. some animal looking for trouble and deservedly finding it, but truth doesn't sell newspapers or make ratings; race does. Meanwhile, those who do recognize the difference won't typically speak up in our politically correct culture, lest they be disliked or thought of as "insensitive," or God forbid, "a racist." Sensitivity without common sense is utter stupidity, despite how chic some may consider it, and unsolicited labels only matter when they're true.

The dastardly crime of home invasion must itself become a capitol felony, punishable by death, even if murder is not involved. Those sheep, continually cringing in incessant fear and protected by nothing else but their wool and their misconceptions, will argue that such legislation will automatically make home invaders kill their victims. Then what motivated the alleged killers to kill Mrs. Petit and her daughters, and presumably in their erroneous minds, Dr. Petit as well? If we cannot be safe in our own homes, then where can we be safe? Furthermore, armed homeowners should not have to have any legal responsibility, by either written law, or by interpreted legal precedent, to retreat, and for the same reason. The flagrantly brazen crime of home invasion, that is, burglary with the knowledge, and/or lack of concern that the home may be occupied, must have zero tolerance and be punishable by death, either by a lawfully self-defending homeowner, a judge, or a jury.

Then of course, there is the whole parole fiasco. I've worked in the Corrections and Criminal Justice system. I've seen my share of Komisarjevsky's and Hayes's. The names and faces change, but the stories are always the same. There are still many liberals who still cling to the long ago dismissed and failed premise of "rehabilitation." That is not to say that no inmate can ever be reformed, but the comparative numbers of those who are truly reformed are infinitesimal. And no, sorry, liberals, but dysfunctional childhoods justify sympathy, but not amnesty. Many people grow into adulthood from the so-called "mitigating factors" of a lousy childhood, but not all of them are criminals, either. Like it or not, with the coming of age should also come the realization and practice of self-accountability. Incarceration is intended to be both a means of punishment and a means of isolating criminals for the protection of society. Our mindset isn't where it should be yet. Parole should not even exist. I don't see much reason for ankle bracelets, either, unless we are talking about fashionable jewelry accessories for women. Call it "three strikes and you're out," or whatever you wish, and by whatever standard you reasonably arrive, but these two birds should have been permanently removed from the streets long before this tragic and needless incident ever could have occurred. Freedom and recidivist criminals should be as separate as oil and water. But more prisons cost more money. In a state that doesn't want to kill its most barbaric convicts, or even ship them to another state, even thinking about revoking our abysmal parole system is a moot issue. Then of course, there is the cost, which could be manageable if we make room in our prisons by killing off the rabid animals we are still warehousing on the public dole, and by ending the vast array of socialist state government entitlements that this state is known for. But let's not shoot for anything so high just yet. Let's start out with something far more practical and much easier, like forcefully extracting a tooth out of an unrestrained and hungry pit bull's mouth without sedation. Even if we could change our mindsets and rearrange our finances, there are the NIMBY's, "Not In My Back Yard." Everyone wants new prisons, as long as they are all "somewhere else." We have 169 municipalities in this state, and each one of them considers the other 168 "somewhere else." That kind of fuzzy math just doesn't calculate.

From what little I have read and heard, I find no fault thus far with the Parole Board. It's the whole system that needs to be revamped, guidelines that need to be modified, loopholes that need to be closed, and the other flaws I mentioned that need dire repair. Having the Governor and various legislators, citizens, law enforcement personnel and various advocacy groups all making noise looks impressive on the news, but when all the smoke clears, the cold, hard fact will still remain that before we change the broken system, we still have to first change our clouded hearts and minds, otherwise, we're back to status quo, which means we are all endangered, not just by violent criminals, but by our naïve, fearful, clumsy, uncommitted, uncertain, well-meaning selves as well. The Boogey man does not always have to appear ugly, onerous, and menacing. Collectively, we talk a good game, yet the more we see other people's protective bubbles get popped, the more we blindly retreat deeper into our own.

Meanwhile, could someone please direct Dr. Petit to where he can get his family back?