Three Strikes, You're (Really) Out, And Three Appeals, You're Dead by Doug Wrenn

Try This: Three Strikes, You're (Really) Out, And Three Appeals, You're Dead

By Doug Wrenn

August 20, 2007

As some of our state legislators wrangle with actually putting some teeth into Connecticut's all but visible so-called "Three Strikes" law, in light of the recent horrific and utterly senseless Cheshire home invasion, I have been pondering my own version of a three strikes panacea. Note to General Assembly Judiciary Committee Co-Chairmen and fellow bleeding heart liberals, "Raggedy Mike & Andy," Democrat Representative "Iron Curtain" Mike Lawlor of East Haven, and his sidekick, Democrat Senator Andrew McDonald of Stamford: close your eyes, boys, 'cuz this ain't gonna be pretty!

We need to recognize that our state is a liberal bastion. Liberals typically resent authority, which is why they so despise cops and soldiers. Our loopy liberal activist judges have been raised in this tainted soil, and their actions have verified their ideology. In this case, we are talking about the worst of the worst among our criminal element, and for too long, judges with heads as soft as their hearts have utilized judicial discretion in applying the abysmal farce that we call our alleged three strikes law. Remove that discretion, and in so doing, limit the opportunity for what could more appropriately be called "judicial abuse." To coin popular liberal parlance, "close the loopholes."

Some of our legislators are looking at legislation that would set timelines for court proceedings. Splendid! After all, don't the accused have a right to a speedy trial, as articulated in the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution? But I would take it one step further. Our so-called "death row" is merely a convalescent home for sociopaths. The only elements missing are the afternoon bingo and shuffleboard games. The only death most of those birds will see will be come from natural causes and a broken, liberal, dysfunctional judicial system. There is no reason for years and even decades of endless appeals. Once someone is convicted of a capital offense (which is so heinous that it should be separate from the three strikes application) he should be given a maximum of three appeals, and those three appeals should also be legislated into a reasonable time frame, say three years, one year for each appeal. Furthermore, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and remove all suspicion: the state should mandate that the inmate receive three appeals, including DNA testing, before being put to death whether the inmate even wants the appeals or not. Then when he is finally and permanently removed from civilized society, let all the candlelight vigilists blow out their candles, go home, and shut up once and for all.

What should constitute a three strikes violation? Any conviction of any crime involving any form of physical violence, or the threat thereof, or the carrying, use or threat of a dangerous instrument or a deadly weapon to carry out that crime. Also add to that list any physical intrusion into any home between the hours of 6pm and 6am, when the home is most likely to be occupied, regardless if the intruder is armed or unarmed, or threatens or utilizes violence or not. The act of intruding into a person's home when it is presumably occupied should itself be considered an act of violence because it can well lead into an act of violence, whether violence is originally intended or not. Upon conviction of the third strike, a life sentence without possibility of parole, which should not even exist anyway. Words should have real meaning. When a judge sentences a defendant to ten years in prison, that sentence should really mean ten years, and not five years. If these people could be trusted at all, they wouldn't be going to prison in the first place.

Remove all legal interpretation that a person in his own home, automobile, or owned place of business must retreat from an intruder. In all such instances, citizens have a justifiable right to be where they are and should never be forced to retreat from such legitimate sanctuaries from outside harm. A man's (or a woman's) home is rightfully his or her castle. So is his or her car, and so is his or her business if he or she is the owner of that business. When these sanctuaries are intruded, the rightful dweller should have the legal right to use deadly force to protect him or her, as well as any other innocent and rightful occupying third parties, as well as the property itself. Let the intruder beware that by intruding such sanctuaries, he does so with the understanding the occupant, driver or occupant can and may kill him, not just on paper, but in the true spirit and with the full backing of the law as well. Lets' face it, even for liberal, pacifist, anti-gun, bleeding heart do-gooders, when a perp is suddenly and already in your face while you are home, in your car, or in your place of business, it's too late to call 911, close your eyes and hope for the best. A civilized society, unlike old classic movie westerns, need not assign black hats and white hats to discern the bad guys from the good guys.

A conviction for Attempted Murder or 1st Degree assault will still (theoretically) get you 20 years in this state. As I once heard the point sarcastically made, "Which 20 years would you prefer to serve?" There is no substantive difference between the two charges, barring (possibly) motive. Cops and prosecutors tend to like 1st Degree Assault better than Attempted Murder because it's easier to prove in court and because the sentence is the same. Perhaps we should remove the distinction of motive and instead implement common sense.

In a given scenario, motive aside, if a perpetrator seriously assaults another person by severely beating him with the help of one or more other persons, or utilizes a bat, a pipe, a knife or a gun, and then leaves the victim, lying there, bleeding, in some cases, the victim will die, and in other cases, the victim will survive, but in either case, the perpetrator does not know if the victim will live or die. Whether the victim lives or dies is a crapshoot, given the physical condition of the victim, the severity of his injuries, how soon he receives medical treatment, and last but certainly not least, God's will. So the bottom line is that after inflicting such a serious assault upon his victim, the final outcome of the perpetrator's act is out of his hands, yet, despite motive, the commission of the act opens the conspicuous possibility that the victim may die. So then, why is 1st Degree Assault not a capital felony? We need to lower the standard of administering the death penalty. Both Attempted Murder, and 1st Degree Assault should be made capital offenses (meaning punishable by death) because the commission of the act can very well lead to murder, despite motive, and the final result is out of the hands of the perpetrator, who should well know that the final result of his assault may very well be death for his victim.

OK, Mike and Andy, you boys can open your eyes again, but just for a little while. I have heard lots of vitriol on the radio lately because the two accused perpetrators of the Cheshire home invasion have already cost the rightfully angry taxpayers a pretty penny. Far be it from this fiery and passionate soul of Irish and Italian descent to preach patience and humility to anyone, but for now, let's all take a deep breath and a step back. John Adams became a red-haired step-child overnight in the community when he defended the accused British soldiers involved in the bloody Boston Massacre, but Adams was right. We all cringe and seethe at the sight of Hayes and Komisarjevsky when we think what they might have done to the Petits because most decent, humanitarian people can relate, or at least, so we think, to the barbaric, needless and nightmarish sufferings of Dr. Petit and his now deceased wife and children. But to even a slight degree, there is also a little bit of Hayes and Komisarjevsky in each of us as well. As people in 2007, we haven't changed all that much from Bostonians in the late 18th Century. Given our instant, self-gratifying druthers, when our buttons are pushed enough, we want blood, not justice. John Adams recognized that very natural and very human flaw. Justice is what separates people like the Petits from people like Hayes and Komisarjevsky, who even if innocent of committing this crime, have been convicted of committing many previous serious crimes. I want to see justice too, and make no mistake about it, if a judge or jury finds these two thugs guilty, I would gladly pay any amount of money for the privilege of sticking the needle in them myself, and even that would be too good for them. Rest assured, Mrs. Petit and her two daughters died deaths nowhere near as peaceful and humane as what could be facing these two cretins, but for better or for worse, the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, takes precedence over Hammurabi's ancient Code of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Also, if we don't maintain a just and civilized society, then we remove all barriers and then we become what we so loathe; we become Hayes and Komisarjevsky. We must always despise the predators of the swamp, but never crawl in and become the gators ourselves. If that means long and flamboyant police escorts with flashing lights and sirens wailing for a mile long, road blocks, heavily armored and armed SWAT teams, police rooftop snipers, air surveillance, and yes, high priced, big name attorneys to be court appointed, pro-bono public defenders, then so be it. The alternative is far worse in the end.

Speaking from a personal level, I once met and spoke with Jeremiah Donovan several years ago. We had a very amicable and candid conversation, which concluded with mutual knowledge that we are both of very opposite ideologies, but also a genuinely meant handshake between two gentlemen. While I would never support Mr. Donovan for political office, I would not hesitate to seek his legal services if I ever needed them. Furthermore, I wouldn't even mind having a beer with him, as long as we did not discuss politics. I believe Mr. Donovan believes in what he is doing, and I greatly respect him for doing it, our political differences aside. However displeasing it may be to our deep, ugly and seldom recognized animal instincts to see such creatures receive such profound legal defense on our dime, it is nevertheless a necessity if we are to be and continue to be the moral society we so claim to be. In this country, the accused are rightly still considered innocent until proven guilty. There is a very real threat to the lives of Hayes and Komisarjevsky. It is incumbent on us as a society to protect them and to ensure that they receive not only their day in court, but true blind justice as well. Then and only then, if they are found guilty, then let us give them three reasonable but speedy appeals, and if they are then still found guilty, then let us then dispatch them zealously and expediently from our midst and speak their names or even beckon our painful, nauseating and rightfully contemptuous memories of their wasted, insidious and predatory lives among us no more.

Justice is a two way street. It is in place for the innocent as well as for the guilty. Justice failed the Petit family already. As the courts now seek to fulfill justice with Hayes and Komisarjevsky, we must now seek to reform our justice system, now in our legislature, and given the deep blue entrenched mindset in Hartford, that battle will be as uphill as it will be noble, but as that same moral society, we owe it to the Petits, to ourselves, and to the next potential victims of brutal criminal violence, that it must never happen again on our watch because the guardians of the people were asleep on their watch. We, the citizenry must be more vigilant, beginning today, and forever more, in better guarding those guardians, who in turn supposedly guard all of us. We are, after all, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We must now act and right this very egregious and dangerous wrong, not to attempt or even to wish vigilantism, but to instead channel our rightful rage appropriately and constructively, by ensuring that from now on, true justice truly protects all people under its umbrella of protection. To paraphrase local radio talk show host, Ed Flynn, who succinctly nailed it right on the head when addressing attendees of the recent rally for judicial reform in Cheshire, "It ends now, and it begins now!"

Do you hear that, Mike and Andy? The party's over, boys! Now, open the door, step aside and stay the hell out of the way! We're coming in! The people are now taking back charge of our house! Genuine justice for all, and liberal agenda, via the sneaky and subversive backdoor of abusive judicial activism by you and your kooky cronies in our kangaroo courts be damned!

And let our battle cry be, "Remember the Petits!"