I’ve been following, with increasing dismay, the story of David Pollitt, a Southbury neighborhood and Jodi Rell this week. The story, for those of you who didn’t see anything about it (and believe me, it was hard not to), was that a convicted serial rapist, having served his time, was being released. The problem was that he was going to go live with his sister in a posh Southbury cul-de-sac, and the neighbors panicked.
Which is all perfectly understandable. No one really likes having a convicted felon, especially a rapist, hanging around in the neighborhood. There were concerns about the safety of children, which are par for the course–despite the fact that Pollitt had never targeted children when he was committing his crimes more than two decades ago. It was decent of the people of Southbury to show such concern. Of course, ex-offenders are released every day onto the streets of Connecticut’s cities. Where was their concern then?
That’s a typical story of overreaction, hysteria and the sort of “but now it’s happening to US!” activism that tends to crop up in the suburbs. But things took a turn for the bizarre when Gov. Jodi Rell, herself a suburban mom, asked the Attorney General if there was some way that Pollitt’s release couldn’t be postponed. Blumenthal dutifully went to court to try and manage that. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed. A criminal, once he has served his time and paid his debt, is entitled to release. That’s the way our system works. Rell and Blumenthal both have been taking a beating in the media ever since, which is absolutely right.
What was the governor thinking? Yes, she’s probably a little afraid of appearing soft on crime after Cheshire, and this case almost certainly hit home. After all, she wouldn’t want a former serial rapist being released into her Brookfield neighborhood, would she?
Of course, it’s worth pointing out that the governor technically has another residence–the governor’s mansion in Hartford. She’s largely left it untouched, preferring to commute from Brookfield. But how many ex-offenders are returned to the streets in Hartford every day, into a world where job prospects are dim and the social support systems that they desperately need are so lacking? Why is this case worthy of Jodi Rell’s attention, and those cases are not?
And for heaven’s sake, hasn’t the governor learned a thing about how the law works? It’s the duty of the governor to uphold the rule of law. Gov. Rell failed in that this week.
55 responses so far ↓
1 CTcentrist // Oct 13, 2007 at 1:56 pm ·
+0
The fear in this case is justified. This d-bag is a SERIAL RAPIST, not a one-time offender with a chance to be rehabilitated. The government’s number one job is public safety. This clown has ruined five lives already, it would be negligent of the government to allow him to ruin a sixth. If our legislature would stop being so soft on crime, the residents of this neighborhood would not have to do what they are doing to protect themselves. There are people on this earth that are intrisicly evil, and although this guy has served his time, he should not be allowed to rape again. It is a legitimate worry that this stooge will do just that again.
2 Ladyx // Oct 13, 2007 at 2:17 pm ·
+0
As barbaric as this may sound, would castration appease everyone?
3 Genghis Conn // Oct 13, 2007 at 3:09 pm ·
+0
Ladyx said:
I wonder. It seems like a good plan, but it’s irreversible. If the conviction turns out to be wrong…
4 Gabe // Oct 13, 2007 at 4:57 pm ·
+0
It has also been flagrantly unconstitutional for 65 years.
5 Gideon // Oct 13, 2007 at 5:00 pm ·
+0
Gabe said:
When has that stopped legislators?
6 Ladyx // Oct 13, 2007 at 5:09 pm ·
+0
GC - the dude just spent 24 years in prison…
7 G-BuryMan // Oct 13, 2007 at 5:15 pm ·
+0
Gabe:
Please get facts straight.
Many states including CA. use it.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7059/707/a
8 TrueBlueCT // Oct 13, 2007 at 5:18 pm ·
--1
Wow, Genghis Conn considers castration, CTLP lurches to the reactionary right!
If anyone bothered to read the article, they might learn that Mr. Pollitt is under house arrest, and will be wearing a monitoring bracelet. And if he violates the terms of his probabtion, he could be sent back to jail for an add’l fifteen years of jail time. So it’s not like he’s suddenly being set free…
9 Ladyx // Oct 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm ·
+0
The conditions of probation are apparently not acceptable to the people in Southbury.
10 TrueBlueCT // Oct 13, 2007 at 6:41 pm ·
+0
Well we ought to just go lynch the guy then…
I mean who needs a system of justice anyway!
11 MVD // Oct 13, 2007 at 6:46 pm ·
+0
CT Blue has a good piece on this story here.
12 MikeCT // Oct 13, 2007 at 7:08 pm ·
+0
Rape is a crime of violence, not overactive hormones.
Governor Moody operates by reaction, posturing and press release. Grandma Rell does what she’s told. Does this surprise anyone?
13 adamcs95 // Oct 13, 2007 at 7:11 pm ·
--1
Should the State have some sort of System of examination for sex offenders about to released into the community, of course, it is obsurd that we don’t. We have no idea if this guy is anywhere close to being reformed or not. Should we try to have a true Correctional system instead of a strictly Incarceration System, of course. Should there have been other options than to put him in a residential community as his first stop out of prison, yes. However, CTCentrist seems to think that our State legislature can go back and rewrite the judges decision from 24 years ago which is absurd. To ask to tack on extra years on a man’s sentence after it has been served is dispicable. When we stop behaving by the rule of law because of political convience or fear, our democracy will crumble.
I applaud the efforts of this man’s family for taking him under these circumstances, they know they must not leave him alone at anytime, as a stipulation of his release. They knew they would become social piriahs, but they did it nonetheless to give a man a second chance. Perhaps he doesn’t deserve it, but it seems to me (I am admittedly Agnostic) that this act is the the type I was always taught was most Christian back in CCD, to help those who no one else will at great burden to yourself.
14 TrueBlueCT // Oct 13, 2007 at 7:14 pm ·
--1
Isn’t it clear that in the coming election year the CT GOP hopes to exploit the Cheshire tragedy to its political benefit?
Chris Healy is hoping to get back to basics. Taxes and crime/fear.
15 spartan_881 // Oct 13, 2007 at 7:15 pm ·
+0
it should also be noted that this guy was sentence under laws that do not exist anymore. back when he was sentenced in the early 80’s the state had something called “good time credits.” the state eliminated those in the 90’s. so, had he been sentenced after the state eliminated those, he would have gotten a much longer sentence. but the reason why his sentence was 23 years (as opposed to being longer) was because of the laws that existed back then, which no longer exist.
16 spartan_881 // Oct 13, 2007 at 7:16 pm ·
+0
TrueBlueCT said:
let us not forget that he is a repeat criminal too
17 John R. McCommas // Oct 13, 2007 at 8:57 pm ·
+1
Former serial rapist? Is there such a thing?
He should not be paroled in the first place no matter where he is let loose — city or country.
My sympathy is for the victims whom I hope are all in his past and not future.
18 John R. McCommas // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:06 pm ·
+1
Oh and “paid his debt”?
Do you think his victims would agree with that careless statement?
He served his time. The debt he owes those ladies can never be paid back in this world.
19 Genghis Conn // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:10 pm ·
--1
John,
Are we a nation of laws or are we not?
20 John R. McCommas // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:34 pm ·
+1
If they have to let him go than fine. That’s the law. I am thankful that current law keeps these scum bags locked away where they belong forever (if I can believe what I read).
I am just saying that as a point of principal that our sympathy should be with the victims and not the criminal.
He is not the victim here. Those ladies are.
I know a girl that was abused by her grandfather and let me tell you what: To this day 20 years latter, she still isn’t right.
She will never recover and no matter how many years a rapist spends behind bars he has NOT paid his debt. Not even close.
21 fuzzyturtle // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:34 pm ·
--1
CTcentrist said:
blah blah blah
Hes getting released in a well to do WHITE neighborhood .. thats’ the big deal. If he were getting dumped in Bridgeport or Waterbury.. no one would care.
22 fuzzyturtle // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:40 pm ·
+1
A place like Southbury is actually the best place for someone like that.. you don’t see kids playing on the streets, they’re at playdates and afterschool activities and being watched by a parent or nanny. There ARE no latchkey kids, or kids hanging around on the street because both parents are working and cant’ afford a nanny or daycare. Women DRIVE everywhere and then go into their homes in Southbury .. they don’t have to take public transport and then walk home from the bus station.
People can afford security alarms for their homes.
Fewer women, children available… it’s harder to find a victim.
Maybe more paroled rapists should get sent to Southbury.
23 Genghis Conn // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:41 pm ·
+0
John R. McCommas said:
I agree, his crimes were awful, and it’s just that he lost 24 years of his life because of them. He’s no victim, and our sympathies should be with those victims. But that’s not what this is about. It’s about fear, either justified or not, and the rule of law.
24 John R. McCommas // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:46 pm ·
+1
fuzzyturtle
You may be right about that but does it matter in the final analyses??
The central point remains that this dirtbag should spend the rest of his natural life behind bars so he can hurt no woman — of any income bracket — ever again.
Moral relativism is morally wrong dude. Just because rich women are better able, savvier in terms of political strategy in protecting their daughters than poor woman in the same predicament does not mean the rich women are wrong.
Don’t women of any income rate deserve the right to walk down their own street un-afraid?
Are you so green with envy of people who have more money than you that you wish for them to have their daughters raped? Would that make things “fair”?
I know you think the answer to that is “NO” so please, stop pleading the case of the enemy. You are on our side.
You are not a lawyer. Stop acting like one.
25 fuzzyturtle // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:54 pm ·
--1
J
John R. McCommas said:
He did his time.. and he’s going to be monitored for years as part of his parole.
His sister did a brave thing in having him move in with her, to offer him a roof over his head. i’m not sure I would have done the same.. and now, at least he has somewhere to go and will be surrounded by people who will be watching out for him on so many levels.
All the neighbors know.. they’ve been warned. They will not let their guard down. I’m SURE the police will be watching him like hawks watch field mice.
This does not happen to your average punk who’s let go from prison on an assault or rape charge.. they just get dumped on the street, maybe with bus fare, and if they have not been rehabilitated, they may find more people to prey on.
I’m not ‘pleading’ the case of the ‘enemy’. I’m just saying, these people in Southbury have it better off than most people in metropolitan areas.
26 John R. McCommas // Oct 13, 2007 at 9:58 pm ·
+1
So they should offer their daughter up in the name of ….?
27 G-BuryMan // Oct 14, 2007 at 1:33 am ·
+0
According to a study by (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995) found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% .
28 adamcs95 // Oct 14, 2007 at 2:44 am ·
--1
John I’m hearing you not spread anything but fear. He did his time under what the laws where then, they are not the laws now. You can’t do anything about that. So, wWhat would you suggest exactly? He’s being watched 24/7, I will put money on the fact that he will not re-offend, I understand the trempidation of the community, however fear has become an industry in this country, fueled by the media and capitalized on by politicians. At some point you have to look at the reasonable facts and fear only what needs to be feared. If we continue down this road we will no longer be governed by the rule of law we will be governed by fear.
29 Gideon // Oct 14, 2007 at 7:01 am ·
+0
John R. McCommas said:
He was not paroled. He discharged. That is “completed his sentence” as in served every day.
30 Gideon // Oct 14, 2007 at 7:02 am ·
+0
spartan_881 said:
Actually, his sentence was something like 42 suspended after 27. He served 24 and a half. So his good time accounted for something like 2 and a half years.
31 Gideon // Oct 14, 2007 at 7:04 am ·
+0
G-BuryMan said:
According to a recent DOJ study:
link
32 Gideon // Oct 14, 2007 at 7:19 am ·
+0
adamcs95 said:
There are “systems” that exist: evaluation in prisons, rehabilitation classes (albeit extremely limited). However, prior to release, all inmates are examined.
Here’s another troubling thing: If the Gov and the AG were so worried about his ability to reintegrate, then why wait till 2 days before his release to voice their concerns? I mean, they knew where this guy was for the last 24 years.
There are facilities for sex offenders to go to when they are paroled; this guy wasn’t paroled. He cannot be held in a halfway house in a DOC bed, because that would be an extension of his incarceration. In-patient facilities are not a form of probation.
So, I disagree to the extent that you say there should have been a different “first stop” out of prison. Not for this guy. He clean discharged his sentence. He is no longer in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction. Now probation owns him.
33 Don Pesci // Oct 14, 2007 at 9:00 am ·
+1
The real problem may be that no sanctions are brought to bear against people who facilitate bad decisions. Except for prison, the people of Connecticut very likely are safer because Pollitt is among family members and being carefully watched. The two Cheshire killers operated out of a halfway house. There are lots of fingerprints on this release. Suppose Pollitt does commit another rape, who other than his victim and their families will suffer for it? Pollitt will be recommitted to prison surely, but what of all the other people whose fingerprints lie on his presence in Southington: the legislators who will have written a law that puts communities in danger from the early release of multiple rapists; the judge who, quite correctly, told Attorney General Richard Blumenthal that he had no standing in the case? That is what people are anxious about. Of course, they are also anxious about Pollitt because they suspect that prison time may not be a corrective if the rapist has not undergone some sort of transforming experience. It’s bothersome that the people who may most successfully affect Pollitt’s future believe he was wrongfully convicted. Those are the fears that have brought people out of their house to protest Pollitt’s early release.
34 Don Pesci // Oct 14, 2007 at 9:06 am ·
+1
Gideon probably is right in most of what he says. Still, in the study he has cited, I would like to see an age breakout. Probably the age of the released rapist has more to do with the recidivism rate than other factors.
35 spartan_881 // Oct 14, 2007 at 10:11 am ·
+0
Gideon said:
That is incorrect. Pollitt was sentenced to 65 years, suspended after 45. His good time credits accounted for 22 years.
36 spartan_881 // Oct 14, 2007 at 10:11 am ·
+0
excuse me, it was actually 60 years suspended after 45. it is discussed in today’s CT Post.
37 spartan_881 // Oct 14, 2007 at 10:19 am ·
+0
Here it is, from The Day:
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=370854b8-ff50-4654-9670-4f5ca4aed677
Another article:
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=952a90d8-839e-494a-b719-afdd77e4d3da
His original sentence was 60 years suspended after 45 years served. That is why he has 15 years hanging over his head if he violates his probation.
Those “good time” credits do not exist anymore in our state. So, if sentenced today he would still be in prison.
38 CTcentrist // Oct 14, 2007 at 11:23 am ·
+0
Fuzzyturtle, this debate does not need your racist remarks. This is about protecting this guy’s next victim, not about the zip code where this degenerate will be living. This stooge should be in a halfway house, or even better, a mental institution. I am not advocating he spend more time in jail, he served his sentence in accordance with what the law was at the time he committed his crimes.
39 Gideon // Oct 14, 2007 at 12:18 pm ·
+0
Don Pesci said:
I never, ever expected those words to come out of your keyboard
40 Gideon // Oct 14, 2007 at 12:19 pm ·
+0
spartan_881 said:
That’s correct, thanks. For some reason I had 27 stuck in my head - I knew the 15 suspended.
41 Gideon // Oct 14, 2007 at 12:22 pm ·
+0
spartan_881 said:
Well, I think that’s up for debate. Everyone who got sentenced back then knew they’d get good time, so that factored into the offers made by the State. If he were sentenced today, perhaps the sentence would have been structured differently. Who knows. I’ll tell you this: You’re charged with 6 rapes and you get offered 60 years, you’re going to trial. There’s no difference between 60 and 120 (max for each run consecutively).
42 toucan // Oct 14, 2007 at 1:36 pm ·
+0
It’s weeks from Sweeps Month and every TV street reporter in Connecticut seems stationed in Southbury, where just two miles away, another convicted sex offender with Pollitt’s same type of nasty first-degree-sex-assault-20-years-in-prison-type resume, resides quietly, without satellite trucks and vacuous TV-news questions.
http://www.connpost.com/kendixon/ci_7162913
43 toucan // Oct 14, 2007 at 1:39 pm ·
+0
– If you want a criminal to serve a life term, you have to provide for it in the law before he is convicted, not after.
———
–Getting tougher on crime has a cost. The law should provide for life terms for chronic sexual felony offenders, just as it should provide for life terms for all chronic felony offenders, which is the lesson of the recent atrocity in Cheshire, the three murders attributed to two career criminals on parole. Maybe parole should be more restricted too. But the longer sentences are, the more defendants will resist prosecution, and putting them away will require more trials, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and prison cells. And when she was summoned before the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee the other day because the governor had declined an invitation, Connecticut’s correction commissioner refused even to disclose the prison system’s design capacity — the number with which toughness on crime starts.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18911007&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565860&rfi=6
44 CGG // Oct 14, 2007 at 4:00 pm ·
+0
Like it or not this man has been discharged. Rell was only trying to score political points, and if Pollitt wasn’t being released into a wealthy community no one would care. The sad truth is that sex offenders live among us. That scares me, but it’s also the reality.
I’m a survivor. I wouldn’t want this man living down the street from me. But even worse would be for us as a society to ignore the rule of law. Pollitt has served his sentence and he has to be released. Would I support a serial rapist being sentenced to life in prison? Yes absolutely. But unfortunately that wasn’t Pollitt’s sentence.
45 CTcentrist // Oct 14, 2007 at 5:10 pm ·
+0
That post calls for a Heinrich maneuver.
46 Headless Horseman // Oct 14, 2007 at 6:11 pm ·
+1
I’m in favor of castration.
Not chemical.
With gravy and a Rottweiller.
47 Don Pesci // Oct 14, 2007 at 8:15 pm ·
+1
“I never, ever expected those words to come out of your keyboard ” – Gideon
We are always grateful when people agree with us. I think your interpretation of current law is pretty good most of the time. But who was it beside me who said that the object revolutionists should have in view is not to understand the law, but to change it? Lenin Jefferson, I think. The people are not satisfied with the law as it has been interpreted by you. So, do not rest easy. I smell the gunpowder of revolution in the air. And when the people are sufficiently aroused by the inability of their government to keep them safe, they will not be turning to lawyers for succor.
48 Gideon // Oct 14, 2007 at 8:58 pm ·
+0
Don Pesci said:
Well, that was short lived.
49 kerri // Oct 15, 2007 at 7:56 am ·
+0
Race and zipcode go hand-in-hand. Somebody mentioned that this man belongs in a halfway house. Well, where are most halfway houses located? Not in the suburbs. Why should I have this man in my neighborhood anymore than someone who wants or can afford a white picket fence lifestyle? Fuzzyturtle’s remarks weren’t racist–just realistic. My neighborhood has several halfway houses. The CT Sex Offender’s website lists an inordinate number of ex-offenders in a few block radius to me. Unless I’ve missed something, there aren’t newspaper articles and outrage every time another of these EX-offenders comes to Hartford.
With that said, this man has done his time. If the prison industrial complex focused more on rehabilitating, not just on punishment, we would have much less to worry about.
Most violent crime, rape included, is committed by someone who is acquainted with the victim. This isn’t a condolence to the victims, but should tell people that generally speaking, their hysteria is unfounded and wasted emotion.
Instead of worrying about what COULD happen, why not do something about crime that happens daily, like white-collar crime for starters?
50 Don Pesci // Oct 15, 2007 at 8:33 am ·
+0
Cheer up Gideon: here
51 Joe Sixpack // Oct 15, 2007 at 9:22 am ·
+0
My understanding of the “monitor” he will be wearing is that it is a GPS device that IS NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED. It is not designed to know when he leaves his house or where he might be at a given moment. It is designed so that IF a crime occurs or a question of violation comes up, they can check the records for where he’s been and when he was there. Pretty big difference in that it isn’t designed or intended to prevent crimes, it is used to investigate them post facto.
52 NPH // Oct 15, 2007 at 11:11 am ·
+0
If this man has been fully discharged, we have no right to decide where he wishes to begin a new life. He is now, once again, a member of society. If it’s desired that he remain in a halfway house, or mental institution, then studies would need to have been documented throughout the years of his sentence proving the necessity (not to mention the tax dollars).
Exactly, why should you, or anyone in the Suburbs, have any say where this man resides?
53 toucan // Oct 15, 2007 at 1:08 pm ·
+0
That’s an incredibly ignorant statement of how the monitoring program works.
54 toucan // Oct 16, 2007 at 11:27 am ·
+0
a. Her entire involvement in this case appears to stem from her usual finger-in-the-wind desire to gratify the biggest, loudest, most obvious set of clamoring voices. If this woman possesses a set of core beliefs that occasionally supersede her natural instinct for cheap politics, she does not exhibit them very often. In this case, what has spurred her to seek a remedy that exists somewhere beyond the normal scope of the law? The fact that she is getting a lot phone calls. She’s sort of the “American Idol” governor. Phone calls and text messages mean, as far as I can tell, more to her than just about anything.
b. Having decided to interfere in this case, did she seek a legal rationale? Nope. She just had kind of a public tantrum about it. Did she (or anyone from her staff) meet with the probation officials overseeing this case to learn more about how it was going to be handled or to get an understanding of the particulars? Apparently not, according to Mr. Carbone. That would be far too much work for this deeply lazy and hoplelessly superficial chief executive. All she really has to contribute here is a wordless, thoughtless, primal Munch scream.
http://blogs.courant.com/colin_mcenroe_to_wit/2007/10/governor-munch.html#comments
55 Gideon // Oct 17, 2007 at 7:52 pm ·
+0
Don Pesci said:
“Gunpowder of revolution”? That’s a good one!
You must log in to post a comment.