Quandary: Too Many Perverts; Not Enough Room. by Doug Wrenn

Quandary: Too Many Perverts; Not Enough Room. Gee, What's A Nice, Liberal State Like Connecticut To Do?

By Doug Wrenn

October 10, 2007

Once upon a time, there was a kingdom infested with mice. One of the King's advisors suggested that cats be brought in to rid the people of their rodent problem. It worked! But soon, the kingdom was overcome with cats! One of the King's advisors then suggested that dogs be brought in to rid the people of their feline nuisance, and sure enough, within mere days, all the cats were forever gone! But then the kingdom was overcome with dogs! One of the king's advisors then suggested that wild lions be captured and brought in. It worked! All the dogs were soon gone! But then, having eaten all the dogs, the still hungry lions ran out of food, and soon turned on the people, all of the people, and none were spared. Alas, then the kingdom was no more.

Stay with me here. More on our little fairy tale later.

I just don't get it. Today's headline in the Waterbury Republican American reads: "New Neighbor Causes Alarm; Serial Rapist Moving To Southbury After 24 Years In Prison."

First of all, why is any convicted "serial" criminal even on probation and out on the streets at all?

David Pollitt is being released soon from prison, albeit with some imposed restrictions, after serving a 24-year sentence for so many rapes that his record of committing them is actually considered "serial." He will soon be living with his sister in Southbury. After serving 24 years in prison, only now is he required to seek any substantive treatment. Family members still argue that despite Pollitt's conviction, he is innocent of raping several women and teenagers in several Connecticut towns. His loving family wants him back home. The neighbors of his loving family have a slight difference of opinion in that regard.

Hmmmm, what to do…

Being the liberal state that we are, we started something we can't finish and made even more of a mess out if it because we didn't want to do what should have been done long ago.

While I don't particularly have any sympathy for sexual predators, I think our sex predator registry is an abysmal farce to a certain degree.

With regard to pedophiles specifically, it has often been said that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to cure them of their violent and degenerate compulsion. Maybe that is also true with rapists. Are they truly sick or just evil? I don't know. That's for a shrink to decide, but what to do with them is hardly rocket science.

A source tells me that Whiting Forensic Institute, our state's only mental hospital for the criminally insane, sometimes takes in patients who don't belong there and would more appropriately be housed in our corrections system. Having formerly been employed with our state's corrections system, I have seen the opposite situation occur on occasion as well. In both situations, the problem is usually soon resolved and the patient or inmate is transferred to a more appropriate setting. My source also tells me, and with some frustration, that our state is wrought with alternative social engineering experiments and do-gooder projects to keep real criminals out of our prisons and on our streets. It's been many years since I was a C/O ("Corrections Officer"), but I remember from my academy training that the theory of "rehabilitation" was refuted long ago. Prisons now exist for primarily two reasons: to punish the guilty, and to isolate them to protect the innocent, period. That is not to say that criminals cannot ever be rehabilitated, but in most cases, such is not the case, and those who are not rehabilitated tend to be sociopaths and recidivists who are incapable of being helped and/or are unwilling to be helped.

I don't care that David Pollitt will be required to wear an ankle bracelet (and for only five years). I also don't care that his family insists that he is innocent. With all due respect to his family, and it is worth noting that they did nothing to deserve all this negative and unsolicited publicity, the fact of the matter is, Pollitt's family are entitled to their opinion, but a court of law nevertheless convicted him (In at least one case, Pollitt took a lesser plea under the Alford Doctrine, and he is currently suing the state to have his conviction(s) overturned, according to the Republican American article). As far as the State of Connecticut is concerned, David Pollitt is currently guilty until a court of law overturns his conviction(s) and says otherwise.

In this state's never-ending endeavor to not punish criminals, we now have a sex offender registry. Sex offenders must register any address and change of address with police in that jurisdiction, and as can be imagined, some offenders do and some don't. What reasonable expectation is there that someone convicted of breaking one law will not break another law? Of course, such is the crux of the gun control debate; only the good guys obey the gun laws and the bad guys still get the guns, much to the naïve astonishment of the left. Sex offenders are no trustworthier than armed criminals of other offenses, yet we continue to go out of our way to trust those who have proven that they cannot be trusted, and pose a risk to society.

Along with the sex offender registry is a link, courtesy of the Connecticut State Police, to our state's web site of sex criminals, living fairly freely in a neighborhood near you. The public can freely see which and how many predators live in which towns and where. That's nice, as long as all the sex offenders notify the police as they are so obligated, and as long as the cops keep the web site up to date (as if they have nothing better to do). That aside, I have a problem with that whole idea for several reasons.

Many years ago, I was also an Emergency Medical Technician ("EMT"), working on an ambulance. "AIDS" at that time was still pretty new. Many of us still thought it was spelled with a "y" and not an "i" and that it was not an immune disease, but rather a popular sugar-free chocolate candy. When we suspected a patient had AIDS, or for that matter, Hepatitis, which ironically has been around much longer and is actually more prevalent, we would wear gloves. In some cases, patients were embarrassed or offended. Shortly later, "universal precautions" came out, which dictated to all health care workers that the proper protective attire, gloves, gowns, masks, etc., would always be worn as needed. That way, no patients would be offended (which I am convinced was the primary motive for reasons of political correctness, as many, although not all AIDS patients are gay) and at the same time, we would always be protected from contamination.

The reason why I am regaling you with tales of my EMT days, which occurred shortly after the invention of the wheel and just before the birth of Christ, is because, as usual, I see an analogy here. Why do we only have web sites for pedophiles and rapists? Wouldn't also you like to know if a murderer lived next door to you, or a drug dealer, or a burglar, a vandal, or maybe an arsonist? Why is it that we only highlight pedophiles and rapists? Once again, like it or not, because of political correctness. Rapists and pedophiles target women and children and not necessarily all of the general public, which is also why I believe we hear so much more about breast cancer in women and nowhere near as much about prostate cancer in men. People who suffer from either terrible affliction equally deserve our focus and sympathy. Not that women and children are less important than men or adults, but modern, liberal society elevates women and kids specifically to a higher and more politically correct level, while still hypocritically droning incessantly on about "equality." "Universal precautions" should also be applied to parents watching their kids. Parents should be less trusting of the man (or woman, as more and more female teachers are also appearing in the news as pedophiles) next door, regardless if that person appears on a sex predator registry or not. As we did, back in the early to mid 80's with patients, parents now should treat all strangers with the same, and equal amount of caution. Thus, the sex predator web site, which is not always accurate anyway, only protects us from sexual criminals but not any other kind, and which then gives parents a false sense of security, which in turn indirectly encourages parents to let their guard down, which endangers their kids, and thus, the site should be removed. I'm also surprised that given our current mindset with regard to personal identity and confidential information like addresses, that the web site was never constitutionally challenged in court as a civil rights violation anyway. As I was simultaneously bored and could not sleep last night at about 11 PM, I was in bed with my trusty remote and channel clicking back and forth between our state's three or four local so-called "news" stations, none of which are worth much more than hyping car wrecks, fires, bank robberies, drive-by shootings (far too often dubbed as "breaking news," as if something unusual actually just happened), trendy psychobabble, health fads, sports (reported with obnoxiously, annoyingly and inappropriately far too much passion, volume and zeal, as if these grossly over-glorified grown-up kids' games were at all significant) and the weather forecast (which is not always accurate, but still contains far more supposed scientific detail than I need to know or particularly care about) I stumbled upon coverage of the Pollitt story on three of the local so-called "news" broadcasts. One station interviewed a neighbor who commented with inane chagrin that once Pollitt moves into their neighborhood, parents would then actually have to "supervise" their children. Duh! You mean they aren't already doing so now? Of course they're not. We all know that. For all the hype about child predators, and "protecting our children," as I work on the road, I still constantly see unsupervised young children all over the place and often running or bicycling out in front of my car without looking, and with Mom or Dad no where around to be found. We don't need sex predator web sites. What we do need is for our cops to pinch a few more of these negligent Moms and Dads for child neglect. While I am in no way making light of the very real threat of sexual predators to children, the fact remains that these vermin are opportunists. Remove the opportunity, such as unsupervised children, and you remove the crime. Therein lies the very effective front line of defense to "protecting our children." Parents who talk the talk about "our children" also need to walk the walk.

Yes, I know, but what about the sex predators? A couple or so years ago, when I interviewed Dan McCann, who was running for State Representative for East Haven's 99th District, Dan rightfully expressed his frustration to me at that time because his Democrat opponent, the very liberal Mike Lawlor, who is also the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman, opposed legislation that would create tougher sentences for repeat child predators. Sadly, this mindset is nothing at all new for Lawlor, or for our state.

For all the enraged upheaval over the recent and very needless atrocity that befell the Petit family of Cheshire, we still can't get a real "3 strikes law" passed in this state, and once again, the best laid plans of mice and men are being thwarted by the usual liberal suspects, and yes, again including Michael Lawlor. Heaven forbid we even consider a "2 strikes" law! Yes, every once in a while, an innocent man is wrongly convicted, but very rarely. While I hesitate to say it can't happen twice, the chances of such an instance occurring a second time with the same person are even slimmer. Like it or not, we need a 3, or even a 2 strikes law, and laws with real teeth in them for any violent criminal. The use of ankle bracelets should be very limited, if even used at all. If sexual predators of any kind cannot be cured, then after a second offense (if not a first offense) they should be sentenced to life and incarcerated in either a prison, or a mental hospital for the criminally insane, as determined by professionals more qualified than I to make such decisions. We should not have sex registries and sex registry web sites, and if the sexual predators are off the streets and in padded rooms or steel cages where they belong, then we won't need the registries and sites anyway. Parents should actually act like parents, and actually supervise their children, and yes, use "universal precautions" when doing so. Anybody with the distinction of being a "serial" anything should be incarcerated for life in an institution that is appropriate to his (or her, where applicable) mental status and/or committed crime, and preferably, long before being able to procure the "serial" criminal distinction.

But we really don't want to punish our state's lower ilk, or effectively deal with the mentally depraved. The Petits weren't enough, just like September 11th wasn't enough. Sadly, there will have to be at least a few more "Petits" before we get really tough with the bad guys and sadly, a couple or more of our cities will have to be nuked before we really take fighting terrorism seriously, and not as a partisan football to win elections (Yes, Democrats, I mean you!). In both cases, we have the desire, but not the will, and one without the other is worthless.

Meanwhile, as we feel sorry for "serial rapists," like David Pollitt, et al, what do we have? A bunch of arguing "NIMBY's" ("Not In My Back Yard)! Of course nobody in Southbury wants David Pollitt or anyone like him in their town. Newsflash: I seriously doubt the other 168 towns or cities in the state would welcome any such similar newcomers with open arms either. "Serial rapists" are not only potentially dangerous to women and kids, but they aren't exactly conducive to boosting the local real estate values, either. As the saying goes, "There goes the neighborhood!" Nevertheless, there is only so much room in this state. At some point, like foolishly trying to pour 11 ounces of water into a 10 ounce glass, elementary, but very stubborn physics soon takes over. If we continue to insist on letting these cretins roam around, it is absolutely ludicrous to have them on sex predator web sites. It's also crazy to tell them they can never be near a school or any other location where kids are present. That could even be a museum during a field trip. What if a sex predator has a doctor appointment, or has to go to the store to buy a gallon of milk, and by sheer necessity, must walk or drive past a summer camp, a school, a church during catechism, a museum, a park, playground, a fair, a sports stadium, a daycare center, a toy store, etc, an ice cream truck, or just about any public place where Santa Claus can be found at Christmas time, etc. No mater how you slice it, the sex criminal is pretty much in violation almost wherever he goes, regardless of what his intentions mayor may not be. This is all lunacy, all these web sites, restrictions, people screaming about their neighborhoods, etc., and none of it can be prevented, and all because we don't want to lock these mutants up. We don't want to do what it takes. Despite all our bluster, we still don't want to make the tough decisions. And yes, that means more prisons, Michael Lawlor, and yes, that means more money for those prisons. That means shipping some of these low-lifes out of state to make more prison space, and that's too bad about them. I don't care about the inconvenience to their families who want to visit them. We have troops serving this country in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families have a difficult time seeing them, too, and they didn't even commit any crimes. Yes, build more prisons, and save some needed funds by scrapping more of your wasteful loopy, socialist, utopian government entitlement programs, and let more individuals, more families, more churches and civic groups take more responsibility like they did years ago before government became everybody's personal and favorite ATM. There are some things government cannot and should not do. There are other things government can, should, and must do, and at the top of that list is protecting the people. I don't care. I don't want to hear the same, old, lame excuses anymore. It is too late for all that dizzy drivel and procrastination now. Too much has already happened. Just shut up and do it!

But we won't. We can't. It's not fair. It's not right. It's too hard. It's too harsh. There must be some other way. The poor criminal is misunderstood. He loves his mother. He's really a nice guy. He didn't mean it. He has feelings, too. He has rights, too. He had a bad childhood. He had poor self-esteem. He had zits. He hated math. He couldn't make the baseball team. He has "mitigating circumstances" (always one of my favorites). Boo-hoo. Boo-hoo. So instead, we have sex offender registries and web sites, parents who are clueless, apathetic, and irresponsible, if not AWOL. We have towns like Southbury up in arms. We have dangerous criminals like David Pollitt on the streets with ludicrous, and even some temporary restrictions that are doomed to fail by the currently flawed system, if any are even obeyed by the criminal to whom the restrictions are assigned. And yes, sadly, we have the Petit family in Cheshire. The bottom line here is about the choices we make, and the resulting consequences from the choices that we made.

Welcome to the kingdom.

Enter the lions.

Doug Wrenn