Author Defends Book

Writer speaks exclusively with News Channel 8

Updated: Wednesday, 30 Sep 2009, 6:54 AM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 29 Sep 2009, 7:34 PM EDT

• Story by: Mark Davis

New York (WTNH) - The author of a new book detailing the Cheshire home invasion defended his work against accusations it could help the defense.

Brian McDonald talked about the book in an exclusive interview with News Channel 8. McDonald said the book was written from publicly available information and from over two hours of jail house interviews with suspect Joshua Komisarjevsky, who has yet to go on trial.

"It's not like I raced the trial process up there to beat it," McDonald said. "You know, it's been almost two and a half years (going on two and half years) I started the project. I just finished it before they did."

Asked if he was concerned about the impact his book will have on the trial, McDonald said, "as a human being, sure I have. I think about it. But my job was as a journalist. And, you know, I did my job."

Mark Davis: "I can tell you I sped read through this at lunch and it really appears to be Joshua Komisarjevsky's life story and it really appears to be a 'how to guide' for the defense for mitigating circumstances because his childhood was so terrible. Are you aware of that?"

McDonald: "I disagree with you. It's not just Komisarjevsky's life story. There's reporting all around that. There's the story of the crime. Listen, there was three people who survived that horrible morning and I tried to get in touch with all three of them and only one of them contacted me and that happened to be Joshua Komisarjevsky."

Davis: "I have to tell you, Brian, you know we did an advance story on the book last night and you're taking a terrible beating on our web site from people who are just mad as can be and think this really shouldn't have come out right now."

McDonald: "This was a horrible, horrible thing and you know I didn't discount that. I certainly didn't discount it when I was going through the process of writing it."

Davis: "Did you, at any time, when you visited Komisarjevsky, did you misrepresent to the Department of Correction in Connecticut what you were actually doing?"

McDonald: "I don't think I misrepresented myself. I walked in there, the first time I had a reporter's notebook and a pen... Did they do a good job of screening? I guess they didn't."

Komisarjevsky, and his co-defendant Steven Hayes, are scheduled to appear in New Haven Superior Court again Thursday. Chances are very good that the topic of this book will come up.

Book on Cheshire murders released

In giving opinions and surveys on the three strikes law in Connecticut on this blog i made a while back in dedication to the issue of a new law in Connecticut I must comment on this new development to this case.

The book written by Brian McDonald has laid a sad truth to those in a desperate society trying to take advantage of a topic which really should not exploit the terrors and unfortunate events of a family.

Support may Increase with Election on Nov 4th

By Frank Juliano Connecticut Post
Article Last Updated: 10/16/2008 08:22:06 PM EDT


MILFORD -- The sister of Dr. William Petit, whose wife and two daughters were killed in a Cheshire home invasion, told a City Hall rally Thursday morning that the state needs a true "three strikes and you're out'' law for persistent, violent criminals.
"People think it's because of the horrific crimes that took the lives of my brother's family, but what happened made me more aware of the victims of crime, who themselves serve a life sentence in their grief," Joanna Petit-Chapman said.
The Petit family was attacked in their home early in the morning of July 23, 2007, by two men who had been recently paroled.
The men killed the three females; the daughters by burning them with gasoline.
"This is common-sense legislation; it is not a Republican or Democrat issue,'' she said. "People who have committed three violent crimes have lost the right to live in our society. They are not the people we want as neighbors.''
Petit-Chapman was flanked by state Sen. Sam Caligiuri, R-Waterbury, chairman of the Three Strikes Now Coalition, and Vincent Marino, the Republican candidate for the 14th District seat.
Marino pledged Thursday to support and to vote for "three strikes'' legislation if he is elected Nov. 4. Caligiuri said that he and a member of the Petit family will hold a press conference with any candidate who pledges to support the measure, regardless of party.
Dr. William Petit appeared at a similar rally Tuesday at Cheshire

Town Hall, where state Rep. Alfred Adinolfi, R-Cheshire, announced that he had signed the pledge. Caligiuri, whose district includes Cheshire, said that 60 candidates have responded to the pledge sent by the coalition sent to everyone running for a seat in the state House or Senate.
Among those listed on the coalition Web site who voted against the measure last year but now say that they will support it is Sen. Joseph Crisco, D-Bethany, whose district includes much of the lower Naugatuck Valley. Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, said the law passed by the Legislature in the wake of the Cheshire home invasion strengthens "three strikes'' protections by making home invasion a specific crime with a minimum 10-year prison sentence, creating a full-time parole board and adding money for re-entry programs for released convicts.
The bill she voted against was not endorsed by a study panel that included prosecutors and law enforcement officials, Slossberg said.
But Marino, who said he decided to run for the Senate seat when he saw fear in his wife's eyes after the Cheshire tragedy, said that the current law gives too much discretion to appointed judges.
"This is an issue for the people of the state. It is time that we get to determine what happens to these persistent, violent offenders, not to leave it up to appointed officials.''
Petit-Chapman agreed: "The present law is a step in the right direction. But it doesn't go far enough. That law doubles the minimum sentences for these crimes, but we're saying we need to have persistent, violent offenders removed from
society.''
Caligiuri said only a narrow category of very serious crimes would be covered by the proposed law. "We're not talking about stealing a loaf of bread.''

What Money Influences

This is my direct opinion on the subject if it were to happen in the city of Hartford or some lonely slum in Connecticut it would be the news of yesterday and oh well that it happened to a family of however many that were victimized. It's a shame that you have to be a doctor and live in a certain life style for change to occur without uncovering the true fact of this subject. Justice is truly blind but not ignorant to what one person experiences and what the rest already know to be a real. The truth is our laws are not dictated by one mans anger of what happened or some small community to doesn't represent the rest of us who have to deal with the rath of crime because of our inability to live in that self created egg with open doors and unlocked fences.

WE DONT NEED BANDADES TO SOLVE ISSUES WE HAVE HAD FOR SO LONG WE NEED REAL LEADERS AND HARD WORKING THINKERS WHO HAVE HAD THE TIME TO EXPERIENCE THESE TEACHINGS OF OUR LIVES.

We need change but maybe this will be a teaching for us to work together in a system that needs change but also needs care. We created a blind fold of justice in order to protect from biases from instances like these. Lets start with education not rage.


By, Emiliano Arroyo Jr

Wikipedia Definition of Three Strikes Law

Three strikes laws are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which require the state courts to hand down a mandatory and extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. These statutes became very popular in the 1990s. They are formally known among lawyers and law professors as habitual offender laws.[1] The name comes from baseball, where a batter has two strikes before striking out on the third.
The stated rationale for these laws is that the automatic and lengthy imprisonment of individuals who commit three or more felonies is justified on the basis that recidivists are incorrigible and chronically criminal, and must be imprisoned as a matter of public safety

Tribune

Three strikes and you're out. It sounds simple and oh-so satisfying. Give a man a couple of chances to play by the rules. If he can't, lock him up and throw away the key. Think of all the crime we will prevent.
The General Assembly is poised to consider such a reform of the penal code. It is rushing to judgment in the wake of the murder of members of the Petit family in Cheshire. The alleged assailants in the Cheshire case had long records. Had there been a three-strikes law in place, both men would have been locked up and unable to commit the crime.
That's facile reasoning akin to blaming obesity on Eve's decision to eat that apple. But for the fatal decision of hers that fouled paradise, there would be no sin. Without obesity, we'd all be trim. This line of reasoning is playful but pointless. Call it a truism.
Connecticut does not need a mandatory three-strikes law. Lawmakers itching to look tough on crime like Sen. Sam Caligiuri are twitching with self-righteous rage. They want to do something to look good for the good folks of Chernobyl, Connecticut, once the peaceful town of Cheshire, but now radiating hatred after last summer's murders.
Wholesale reform of the penal code and criminal procedure is probably a good idea. Knee-jerk legislation is, however, irresponsible. This is a short session of the legislature, for starters. Major initiatives are typically saved for long sessions, which take place every other year. We designed it that way for a reason. We want lawmakers to look before they leap.
Here is what reform of the criminal justice system would look like if lawmakers were acting thoughtfully.
First, any three-strikes provision would not be mandatory. While the need to deal with recidivism is real, it could more adequately be dealt with by making stiff punishment for repeat offenders a rebuttable presumption rather than a mandatory consequence. We appoint judges to make difficult decisions about particular crimes and particular defendants. Mandatory rules make a mockery of justice. Ask any judge who just sent a teenager away for the mandatory nine months for having consensual sex with another teenager.
Second, Connecticut should enact sentencing guidelines. There have been complaints that the Board of Pardons and Parole does not get sentencing transcripts when it makes a decision about whether to release a defendant.Most sentencing transcripts are meaningless. Judges, or if there is a trial rather than a plea, juries ought to be required to make detailed factual findings about an offender and his crime. That way the parole board and others would know why particular sentences are imposed. The guidelines again should operate on the basis of rebuttable presumptions. It would take the guesswork out of justice.
Third, we ought to revisit whether we really need individually sequestered voir dire. I try cases in both the state and federal courts. I see no difference in the outcome based upon the manner in which juries are selected. The time we save on jury selection could be spent deciding what justice requires when there is a finding of guilt.
Finally, we ought to pore over the penal code and eliminate the chatter that makes a crime of just about everything.
Play acting at reform in the name of rage is wrong. Let's get serious about reform of the criminal justice system and put off until a long session of the legislature deciding what to do about crime. •

New Haven Register

August 21, 2007
CT: Calif. ‘3-strikes’ law could be state model
Calif. ‘3-strikes’ law could be state modelPhil Helsel, New Haven Register Staff
A district attorney from California who believes strongly in the effectiveness of the "three strikes and you’re out" law said if Connecticut were to adopt a similar measure the state should model at least part of it on California’s law.
"The court should have the discretion to rein in a prosecutor who may overreach; there has to be checks and balances," said San Mateo County District Attorney James P. Fox., who has been district attorney for 25 years.
At first the law gave judges no leeway in imposing a 25-years-to-life sentence, but the California Supreme Court ruled in 1996 judges should be able to waive a third strike in "the furtherance of justice," which means those defendants would be treated as second strikers.
Connecticut Senate Republicans began calling for minimum mandatory sentences for repeat offenders days after paroled burglars Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes allegedly broke into the Sorghum Mill Drive home of Dr. William Petit Jr., and killed his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and daughters, Michaela, 11, and Hayley, 17.
A California-style three-strikes law would not have applied to Komisarjevsky or Hayes. Komisarjevsky had no record when he was caught for a string of burglaries and Hayes committed mainly low-rent car break-ins.
Republican senators say they are considering writing a law in Connecticut that would have guaranteed both life sentences.
Fox said Monday that he "misunderstood" Komisarjevsky’s criminal past when he last week said the serial burglar would have likely been given 25 years to life under that state’s law.
Len Fasano, R-North Haven, who is state Senate minority leader pro tempore, said Monday the Senate Republicans remain committed to a "three-strikes" law here, though neither Komisarjevsky nor Hayes would have been eligible under the California system.
Fasano said the issue would require "brief discussion," but a law could be written so that suspects with no criminal history could rack up all three strikes at one time for a burglary spree, like Komisarjevsky.
"That’s something we’re going to have to look into," Fasano said. "It could lose the word ‘prior’ and say that if you plead to three crimes and are convicted, you could get 25-to-life. We could absolutely write a law that would have gotten Komisarjevsky." Fox said of his state’s system, "Absolutely it works. When I was first elected, we had three full-time prosecutors devoted to career criminal prosecution. Two years ago I eliminated the last of those positions, because we just aren’t seeing repeat offenders."
While Fox said he’s noticed a difference and the law allows prosecutors to keep the most dangerous felons off the streets, a 2005 report by that state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office found the law appears to have had little effect on preventing violent crime.
There was no noticeable difference in the decrease of violent crime rates between counties that prosecute "third strikers" more vigorously, than others where the law is used far less, the report says.
As of December 2004, 7,574 people had been given 25-to-life sentences under California’s three-strikes law; the report says about 43 percent of those got a third strike for a violent offense, 31 percent for property crimes such as burglary, 17 percent for a drug-related offenses, and 9 percent for weapon possession.
But what has drawn some of the most outrage at California’s law is a provision a researcher said "no one was even thinking about when the law was passed": It allows those already convicted for theft to accrue a third strike on another theft charge, no matter how small.
"If you did a musical comedy about California at the time (the law was passed) it would have been called ‘Anything Goes,’" said University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin E. Zimring, who studied crime rates before and after the law was passed. "The only general mantra was that punishments should go up; it’s nuts."
The way it works is that if someone were previously convicted of petty theft, a prosecutor could elevate what would ordinarily be a misdemeanor charge to a felony; any felony can qualify for a third strike. If someone were convicted only of violent crimes in the past and gets picked up for shoplifting, the charge stays a misdemeanor.
"That means if I had two murder (convictions) and I steal a pack of gum, that’s a misdemeanor," Zimring said. "If I had two burglaries, it would be a felony and I would qualify for a third strike — that’s utterly nuts."
Leonardo Andrade, already convicted of three counts of burglary, petty theft and transporting marijuana, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for stealing five videotapes in 1995 in Montclair, Calif. Gary Ewing, a repeat felon whose prior convictions include burglary and robbery, is serving 25-to-life for shoplifting three golf clubs from an El Segundo, Calif., pro shop in 2000.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld both sentences in 2003, in a 5-4 vote.
Connecticut passed what was dubbed a "three strikes and you may be out" law in 1994 that gives judges power to sentence persistent dangerous offenders to life in prison on a third offense, but it is rarely used. It allows double sentences for a felon on a second conviction.
According to state Department of Correction records, there are 28 people serving prison terms under Connecticut’s repeat offender laws; of those, 21 were convicted of violent crimes such as murder and armed robbery, or burglary. Three are serving sentences greater than 60 years.
But infrequent enforcement of the law is more a product of the pretrial system than unwillingness of prosecutors to pursue it, prosecutors say. Most often it is used as a threat to induce someone to plead guilty.
The majority of criminal cases are settled in a plea agreement, after closed-door meetings between defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges. During pretrial conferences, judges review criminal records and tell both sides how much time they think a defendant should serve.
"When a judge tells you, ‘I think it’s worth five years (in prison), suspended after three and five years probation,’ why would we then go and file for a persistent offender?" said State’s Attorney Kevin Lawlor, who prosecutes serious felony cases in the Milford Judicial District. "Ultimately, sentencing is up to the court."
More often, the state’s persistent felony offender law is used in case a career criminal is convicted of a lesser charge at trial.
Michael Armfield, now 40, was acquitted of first-degree sexual assault in 2004, but a jury convicted him of a second-degree charge.
But Armfield, who had been convicted of raping a college student and trying to rape a North Carolina woman in the past, was sentenced to 24 years in prison for a charge ordinarily punishable by up to 10, using the persistent offender law.
The legislature’s Judiciary Committee will begin holding hearings on justice system reforms Sept. 11; Democrats have refused calls for a special legislative session.
But already some Democratic leaders, such as state House Speaker James A. Amann of Milford, said some Republican requests, such as classifying burglaries into occupied homes as a violent crime that would require convicts to serve at least 85 percent of their time, is something both sides can agree on.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said he believes a three-strikes law here is a matter of time, and he’s not troubled by stories of a man serving up to a life sentence in California for stealing golf clubs.
"I’d rather have that occur than another Cheshire," McKinney said. "I think at the end of the day, the legislature is pretty responsive to the demands of the people. This is something that the people of Connecticut are not going to let go."