Connecticut Is For Lovers – And Murderers
April 10, 2008
In a game of one-upmanship, Connecticut has decided that it is a state for both lovers and murderers. But, please, hate crimes need not apply.
Connecticut and its Democrat controlled Judiciary Committee, which “has been at the helm for 22 years and...has written all the laws governing crime and punishment” never saw a hate crime bill they didn’t love.
The Democrats have seen to it that if someone even “intends to intimidate or harass a person...because of their actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression” it is a crime.
But apparently, politically correct murderers don’t bother the Democrats very much.
Less than a year after two newly paroled “low threat” career criminals raped and murdered a mother and her 17 and 11 year-old daughters during a home invasion in Cheshire Connecticut, another “nonviolent” career criminal, Leslie T. Williams, kidnapped and murdered 61 year-old cancer patient MaryEllen Welsh in the commission of another home invasion in New Britain Connecticut.
Mr. Williams didn’t really mean to kill Ms. Welsh when he invaded the home of her 65 year-old friend Carol Larese. As he explained it in his arrest warrant, “He told police he had made many mistakes such as allowing the females time to memorize his face...That is when Williams realized he would have to kill both females.”
Fortunately, Ms. Larese survived being shot at point blank range by playing dead.
Mr. Williams had been released from prison one month earlier after serving almost 10 years for sexually assaulting a 5 year-old girl.
Even more sadly, the Democrat controlled Connecticut legislature had just voted against a tougher “three strikes” law that would have mandated life in prison for a criminal with three violent felony convictions. This “three strikes” proposal was resurrected after years of Democrat resistance in response to the Petit murders in Cheshire...and promptly killed in the Democrat controlled Judiciary committee.
As reported in The Everyday Republican, “Once that vote was over, the Judiciary panel held a hearing on the issue of protecting transgendered citizens against discrimination. Several people with gender identity issues testified and we will leave it at that. Such are the priorities of the Judiciary Committee.”
Immediately after the Welsh murder, Connecticut’s justifiably upset Republican governor Jodi Rell urged, “Once again, I'm calling on the legislature to pass a three-strikes bill...Now is the time to do it. No more excuses, no more rationalizations. No more.”
In response, Connecticut Democrats and their liberal spin machine went into overtime denial.
Judiciary committee co-chairman, Democrat Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, thought that, “The governor, without a basis in fact, is stirring fear...” Oh, how scary a get-tough-on-crime bill is compared to murderers.
And McDonald’s co-chair, Democrat Rep. Michael Lawlor reasoned that, "We think the (three-strikes) proposal goes in the opposite direction because it's all or nothing.” Somehow he is afraid that prosecutors would not be inclined to use the law.
Both Lawlor and McDonald, believe that the state should (you guessed it)...spend more money, “for child advocates and special response teams to deal with child sex abuse cases, extra training for officials in the judicial system and more parole and probation officers”.
And, the Hartford Courant that editorially found the Petit murders “a terrible mystery” immediately concocted an editorial condemning the governor for proposing “a sound-bite solution to a vastly more complex problem”.
The Courant believes that instead of tough punishment, the state (i.e. taxpayers) should give murderers “what they need to make it”.
It’s the same old liberal garbage...” focus on treatment and transitional services... more programs in teen pregnancy prevention, preschool education and care for the children of inmates”.
Little wonder that murderers are never deterred by the consequences of their crimes...the liberals hand out positive consequences to horrific crimes like it’s trick or treat.
Connecticut now has ten convicted murderers on its (so called) death row. Seven of those ten have filed a lawsuit predictably claiming that capital punishment is unconstitutional.
Democrat co-chair Lawlor “hopes the inmates win their case. If they do, it would be because the court determined Connecticut's death penalty to be unconstitutional. Then we could finally bury this debate”.
When Connecticut carried out its last execution in 2005, serial killer Michael Ross literally had to beg to be executed.
And, repeat offenders keep upping the ante for the very same reason that convicted murderers sit smugly on Connecticut’s death row knowing (in Rep. Lawlor’s words) that, “we're never going to execute anybody”.
They have reasonable assurance from Connecticut’s liberal leadership that the consequences of their actions will be relatively light.
It is a revolving door with promised rewards instead of deterrence.
For those that make the fallacious argument that capital punishment is not deterrence I put forth a single supposition...What would happen to the murder rate if it was a scientific certainty that within a split second of committing murder lightening would strike you in the head?
And the same is true for all crimes except those committed by a very small percentage of criminals...the craziest of the crazy.
Increase the certainty of swift and severe consequences to the potential offender and decrease the likelihood of the crime being committed.
Case rested.
Sen. McDonald rationalized that, “The law wouldn't have applied in this case, or the Cheshire murders, so (governor) Rell is offering a ‘false promise’ to residents”.
Here is Leslie T. Williams criminal history:
§ Nov. 4, 1996: Arrested on burglary charges
§ Dec: 18, 1996: Convicted of third-degree burglary, a felony, and begins serving a one-year prison sentence, followed by three years' probation
§ April 15, 1997: Released to transitional supervision, an early release program
§ May 19, 1997: Returned to prison for parole violations
§ Oct: 22, 1997: Released early again to transitional supervision
§ Nov. 26, 1997: Discharged from prison on probation
§ Sept. 16, 1998: Arrested on sex-assault charges
§ Nov. 18, 1998: Probation revoked, returned to prison
§ March 6, 2000: Convicted of second-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor (a 5 year-old girl), both felonies. Sentenced to eight years in prison and five years' probation. A conviction on a felony drug selling charge is later added, with no additional prison time
§ March 4, 2008: Discharged from prison
§ March 30: Murdered Ms. Welsh
I am counting 4 felony convictions and numerous parole and probation violations prior to the murder of Ms. Welch.
Let’s, for a moment, assume that Williams is too dumb to figure out that if Connecticut had a tough “three strikes” law he would be dancing close to the flames of a life sentence.
Or, let’s even play Democrat and say that the classification of his felonies does not make them “violent” crimes (only a Democrat could consider the rape of a 5 year-old girl nonviolent).
Well then, what in the hell are they Democrats in the Connecticut legislature thinking?
Burglary and rape are violent crimes. Ever lie in bed at night and listen to your door being kicked-in? Please convince me that this is not violence against society.
It’s not that hard. Just reclassify most felonies as violent and pass a mandatory “three strikes” law...and make it prosecutorial policy to implement these laws.
To this, Democrat Rep. Lawlor would respond, “The problem is there's an awful lot of people who get convicted all the time...If your solution is to put all of these people in jail for life, you're going to be spending an awful lot of money.”
I would like to see the cost-benefit analysis of getting tough on crime versus the $billions the Democrats would like to spend in their efforts to “rehabilitate” criminals.
It’s funny how all of these “rehabilitation” proposals are instantly worth funding in a Democrat’s mind, but spending a dime to have the justice system actually bring justice to bear is “an awful lot of money”.
And speaking of kicking the can down the road....
When the Democrats killed the Connecticut “three strikes” bill, Judiciary Committee co-chairman, Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, said, “We are trying to fix something that we don’t know as yet is broken.”
Well Sen. McDonald...I guess now you “know”.
RightPage