Russell Peeler: Death Penalty Poster Child by Doug Wrenn

Russell Peeler: Death Penalty Poster Child

By Doug Wrenn

December 18, 2007

I really don't want to see Russell Peeler die. But I don't want to see anybody else die either. So I'll settle for Peeler.

The state has convicted Peeler of ordering his younger brother, Adrian, to kill Karen Clarke and her eight-year-old son, Leroy "B.J." Brown in their Bridgeport home on January 7, 1999, allegedly to prevent Brown from testifying in court several days later against Russell Peeler, a reputed drug kingpin, regarding a previous murder charge against him. Russell was accused of allegedly killing Clarke's fiancé, (via eight gunshots while sitting in a barber's chair) Russell Snead in 1998.

Adrian is now serving a 20-year term. Russell was convicted of two counts of capital murder in 2000, but the jury was deadlocked in its decision. The State Supreme Court ordered a new death penalty hearing with a new jury, which ruled in favor of the death penalty on October 15th. On December 10th, the sentence was formerly imposed by Judge Robert Devlin, Jr. Peeler then defiantly got into a shouting match with a member of the Clarke family in court. Peeler, during his belligerent tirade, still claimed that he is innocent. Peeler's attorneys are expected to appeal the court's ruling.

My only real source of question and consternation is why Russell, who allegedly ordered the hit, is up for the death penalty, while Adrian, who supposedly actually pulled the trigger, is imprisoned for conspiracy. But as the professional legal practitioners of our courts and a jury of peers have already tried the case, heard the evidence applied the law, and made their decisions, those gnawing mysteries are out of this still curious and still befuddled layman's hands.

As could also be expected, an editorial in the December 17th edition of the Courant.com called for the state to follow the path currently being taken by New Jersey; to consider abolishing the death penalty. When I was a kid, I remember playing this silly game in which I would lie on my back on my bed, and drop my head back over the edge to see everything upside down. In typical fashion, the folks at the poor excuse for our state's journal of record are still playing that silly game, as demonstrated by their consistently upside down views.

The Courant cites added pain to victims' families seeking closure because "the process is intolerably cumbersome and cruel." Indeed. Thank our liberal system for that. How many ridiculous years and repeated appeals are enough? If I am not mistaken, the death penalty in this state is intended to be carried out by lethal injection, not old age.

The Courant also denies that punishment isn't about justice, and that justice only is defined by locking someone away for life. Fine. I can go along with that, but such is not the case in our state and the Courant knows that. As a practicing pro-life Catholic, I bristle somewhat at the thought of the death penalty. I meant what I said in my opening statement. My own faith only permits use of the death penalty when there is no other sufficient means to protect society. And that is why I am for the death penalty, at least until a better system comes along.

The Courant claims the death penalty is about revenge. It is, but not in the way the Courant views it. Revenge and our current liberal system are the combined reasons why we need the death penalty, and for that matter, need to use it much more often, dare I say, "Texas style."

I am reminded of the tragic story of the Waterbury jeweler was robbed in the 1970's and testified against his robber, who then served his sentence, was released and then returned and killed the jeweler in revenge. Yes, Courant, "revenge" indeed. Why did reputed drug gang members Adrian and Russell Peeler enjoy such freedom to commit their heinous acts on that fateful day? There is little doubt that Clarke and Brown were killed in order to be silenced.

And closer to the present day, let us not forget the state's mishandling of missed parole records regarding Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, the two alleged perpetrators in the unthinkable atrocities foisted upon the Petit family in this past July's Cheshire home invasion.

And yet with that now nationwide story as a backdrop, we still see reluctance from our morally bankrupt and legislatively inept, predominantly radically liberal state government to implement a true "Three strikes" law, while Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Michael Lawlor and Gov. Rell whine about prison costs, and Gov. Rell seeks alternative rehabilitative programs proven to be theoretical failures long ago. Meanwhile, not only is the public still no less protected, but also we are now still as endangered.

This state's liberals, Republican, as well as Democrat, can't have it both ways. It is the very liberal system that they created and maintain that necessitates the death penalty. The death penalty in this state must never be abolished until true judicial reform with real teeth in it is enacted.

And as most of our criminals are recidivists, the claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent is sheer folly. Corpses don't commit crimes.

And as can always be relied upon, the left is again crying foul, or to use their favorite buzzword, "racism."

I have read a seven page "executive summary" (courtesy of www.apublicdefender.com) of a 128-page report, published on November 30th by Yale Law School Professor, John J. Donohue III. The report is entitled: "Capital Punishment In Connecticut, 1973-2007: A Comprehensive Evaluation From 4600 Murders To One Execution."

Basically, Professor Donohue makes the point that there are differences in how blacks and whites are sentenced, and depending upon the ethnicity of the victims, and that in some cases, those accused of far more heinous murders are treated lightly, and visa versa.

Despite the fact that this was a summary, Professor Donohue seemed to write in various generalities, and also with seemingly compromised objectivity. His text is full of fiery adjectives such as "arbitrariness," "capriciousness," "discrimination," "egregiousness," "random," etc.. I couldn't help but sense that Professor Donahue, of the Yale Law School began this study with either a conscious or subconscious premeditated agenda. As for the Yale Law School, it has well made its bones as a well-known liberal organization, first formerly banning ROTC recruiters from campus, and then publicly defending, as well as advocating for illegal immigrants in New Haven.

Are we harder on blacks (such as Russell Peeler) in our criminal justice system? Heather MacDonald is an accomplished author, (including of the book, "Are Cops Racist?") John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor at City Journal. In her February 7th, 2007 on-line piece, "Why Cops Stop And Frisk So Many Blacks," she cites that in 2006 in New York City alone, blacks committed 68.5% of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults, while they only comprise 24% of the city's population. She also cites that blacks are 13 times more likely to commit violent crimes than whites.

In a June, 1999 study, the New Century Foundation published a report that blacks commit 90% of all interracial crime, as cited by FBI statistics.

Consider also the findings from American Renaissance in its 2nd and expanded 2005 edition of the book, "The Color Of Crime: Race, Crime, And Justice In America":

-Blacks are 7 times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and 8 times more likely to commit robbery.

-When committing violent crimes, Blacks are more than 3 times more likely to use a gun, and twice as likely to use a knife.

-Blacks commit more crime against whites than against blacks.

-Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime on a white than a white onto a black, and blacks are 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.

-Blacks commit 85% of the 770,000 interracial crimes committed every year.

-Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially designated hate crimes (my emphasis) against whites than visa versa.

-Blacks are 15 times more likely to be gang members.

-Blacks are 7 times more likely to be in prison than whites.

-Between 1980-2003, incarceration in the US more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners rose from 320,000 to 1.39 million.

Then when you consider the widely published fact that approximately 70% of children in black homes grow up without a father, consider these statistics:

-71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes

-80% of all rapists come from fatherless homes

-90% of all homeless/runaway children come from fatherless homes

-70% of all black pregnant teenagers come from fatherless homes.

To sum, the biggest problem impacting the black community is the black community itself. The root of the problem in most cases, are poor life decisions made in black homes that is passed down to future generations, and then manifested in various social dysfunctions, including crime and various other entrapments that make escape from these dire circumstances extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible for most people so affected. Thus, when you look at the numbers, it only stands to reason that blacks commit more crimes, and blacks cannot afford better defense attorneys, and possibly, that there may even be a certain degree of callousness, be it justified or unjustified, from the white community toward crimes committed within the urban black community because of self-fulfilling, destructive prophesies within the black community that also then spill over and impact the white suburban community as well. Like it or not, society has a moral duty to police any individual or group of individuals who refuse to police themselves for the overall protection of all people from all backgrounds within all of society. So enough already with the "boo-hoo, woe is me, Whitey is keeping me down," phony racial discrimination drivel. It may be a colorful shell game, but it's still a shell game.

And as for "racial profiling," these statistics aside, there is no such official entity of "racial profiling," however, "profiling" is a legitimate, and an effective law enforcement that considers various factors, circumstances and behaviors, sometimes somewhat possibly including, but not at all limited to race. I wonder how many black robbery victims, after giving a description of their respective assailants to police as being a black male would take any solace in knowing that the police were out searching for, and stopping white females, so as not to offend any black males. The only positive attribute that can be associated with the inherent danger of applying political correctness to public safety is that such a danger does not at all discriminate as to whom it harms.

Some leftist, racist minions may defend Russell Peeler because he is black, but he was convicted and accordingly sentenced because he is guilty. And by the way, to all you race-baiting do-gooders of the left, Karen Clarke and her eight-year-old little boy, "B.J." were black, and they were victims of a senseless, brutal crime. Who speaks for them, besides us "conservative, angry, white men?" Jesse? Al? Are you out there somewhere? Hello…. Darn! Just as I suspected. There is never an activist self-made, storefront "Rev." around when you need one! Or do the Peeler brothers have to be white before little "B.J." and Karen can qualify for justice from these hypocritical, sanctimonious, bombastic self-coronated, so-called pillars of the black community? At what point do we all develop color blindness to black and white skin and acquire unified outrage for spilled, innocent red blood?

If even more convictions for certain more grave offenses carried a mandatory (and a real) life sentence, that would be a tremendous step forward. The left in this state doesn't want to consider the penalty of death, and contrary to their hyperbole, they also have no real interest in imposing sentences of life. If we collectively and genuinely do have any interest in protecting society, then I see few, if any other options remaining on the table.

It is the inane, irrational, radically liberal mindset in this state that has given us our present, and perilous debacle. We made our bed, wrinkles and all, and now we must sleep in it, although probably not at all too soundly. In this absurdly inept and grossly flawed system, which is now conspicuously only concerned about the guilty, while only granting lip service at best to the victimized, brutalized and anguished innocent, Russell Peeler, and all sociopathic, predatory convicted capital felony ilk like him must die so that others in our society, who do have something wholesome and substantive to contribute may live. Yes, I will settle, albeit, somewhat uncomfortably, for that plan until a truly better alternative comes along, if even at all. If it is our only last hope and best chance for some semblance of security, even if it is our only remaining viable option and only a lesser evil, then let us dispatch all the far greater personified evils. Only then can we even consider attempting a restful night's slumber, maybe.

Doug Wrenn