Pubdate: Tue, 07 Dec 2010
Source: Journal-Inquirer (Manchester, CT)
Copyright: 2010 Journal-Inquirer
Contact:  http://www.journalinquirer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/220
Author: Chris Powell

WAS CONTRABAND LAW WORTH PETIT GIRLS' LIVES?

Nothing in modern Connecticut history has been more excruciating to 
more people than the murder of the Petit family in Cheshire in July 
2007. The other day the whole state relived the horror as one of the 
two perpetrators, Steven Hayes, was given a death sentence in New 
Haven Superior Court and the survivor of the crime, Dr. William A. 
Petit Jr., recounted at length the immeasurable loss of his wife and 
two daughters.

In a few months a trial will be held for Hayes' accomplice, Joshua 
Komisarjevsky, who, as Hayes did, has offered to plead guilty in 
exchange for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. In the 
meantime Connecticut will reconsider capital punishment. The General 
Assembly and the new governor, Dan Malloy, seem likely to repeal it 
for future cases while leaving in force the death sentences for Hayes 
and the nine others awaiting execution in the state.

But as hot as the debate over capital punishment remains and as much 
as Hayes and Komisarjevsky deserve execution, Hayes' sentencing 
raised a far more profound if overlooked issue: drug criminalization. 
As Hayes told the court at his sentencing:

"I was a drug addict, a petty thief, and a person who could not find 
his way in life. ... And even though I was not high when I committed 
these crimes, drugs were the driving force. Any money I would have 
taken would have gone for drugs. ... Many have tried to help me with 
my problems, but I was too busy worrying about where I was going to 
get money for drugs to accept any help."

Of course by itself anything said by someone like Hayes can have no 
particular credibility. But his statement about his drug compulsion 
matches everything in his long criminal record, which is full of 
burglaries committed for drug money. Hayes' statement also matches 
everything known about drug criminalization in America -- that 
thousands of deaths are caused by criminalization and the contraband 
price premium it puts on drugs for every death caused by illegal 
drugs themselves.

Capital punishment is not the question Connecticut should be putting 
to itself as a result of the atrocity in Cheshire. For there is no 
doubt about the guilt of Hayes and those who got to Death Row here 
before him. As much as the state recently has seen some horrible 
wrongful convictions, convictions disproved by DNA evidence or 
witness recantations, Connecticut is not Texas and won't be even if 
Connecticut's capital punishment law remains in place; the law is 
just too exquisite with its appeal procedures.

No, the question Connecticut should be putting to itself as a result 
of the atrocity in Cheshire is whether denying Hayes an inexpensive 
high was worth the lives of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her beautiful 
and beloved daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. Connecticut 
should ask itself the same sort of question after every convenience 
store robbery-murder, every drive-by shooting in its anarchic and 
drug-filled cities, and every burglary in the suburbs.

Really, why not just give the addicts the drugs, and, for those who 
want it, addiction therapy? Is it really the criminal law that keeps 
people from becoming addicts? Was it really the criminal law that 
kept Jennifer, Hayley, and Michaela from becoming addicts?

And if the criminal law does prevent some people from becoming drug 
addicts, is their health really worth more than the lives destroyed 
by the crimes resulting from criminalization? Was Hayes' health worth 
more than the lives of Mrs. Petit and her children? Is there anyone 
in Connecticut who, blessed with the chance to go back in time to 
that horrible day in 2007, would not happily give Hayes whatever 
drugs he wanted?

As most people do not become drug addicts, none of this mitigates 
Hayes' guilt. If, as he told the court the other day, he really 
accepts responsibility for his crimes and thinks that his death would 
be "a welcome relief" for both himself and his crime's survivors, he 
can prove his sincerity by withdrawing whatever appeals the law 
allows him to withdraw and thereby hasten his execution.

That might not only give some justice to the survivors and avoid 
enormous legal expense for the state. It also would spare Hayes' 
public defenders the indignity of their own tediously contrived 
arguments challenging his conviction and sentence, like the argument 
that publicity irretrievably prejudiced everything. After all, Hayes 
admitted his guilt for an unprecedented atrocity, and if publicity by 
itself prevents justice, then the more atrocious the crime, the less 
its perpetrator can be held to account. Even the defense lawyers at 
Nuremberg didn't resort to that one.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom