Skip to main content

Crime and Punishment in Connecticut

Eric Lindquist

Most people whose lives have not been radically disrupted by a violent crime have only a notional understanding of crime and punishment in Connecticut.

The heinous murder of three members of his immediate family by Sergio Correa, a habitual criminal released early on parole, has made an activist of Eric Lindquist.

Correa was sentenced to life in prison without parole following his trial and conviction of murdering in December of 2018 three members of the Lindquist family – father and mother, W.H. Kenneth and Janet, and a son, Matthew Lindquist.

Correa murdered Matthew, testimony at trial showed, because he had reneged on a deal to exchange his father’s guns for drugs to be supplied by Correa, who then went on to murder Mathew’s father and mother, an assault so vicious that prosecutors tried Correa on a charge of “murder with special circumstances – the most serious charge a person can face in Connecticut.”

Execution used to be the most serious punishment  for heinous crimes in Connecticut before the state  Supreme Court abolished the death penalty a dozen years ago after, one newspaper reported, “A legislative committee has taken a brave step toward abolishing Connecticut's death penalty, a law that is all but unworkable, not to mention expensive, unfair and risky."

The “special circumstances” provision was supposed to provide a non-lethal punishment more severe than “life in prison without parole.” Connecticut’s high court had ruled that the death penalty violated presumed changes in morality that had rendered the death penalty obsolete. Actually, it was unending habeas corpus appeals that had rendered the death penalty inoperable, the moral posturing of the court, and its patently absurd pretense that life in prison was in some sense a more severe penalty than execution.

At Correa’s sentencing hearing, Eric Linquist read into the court record Correa’s prior parole pleas and criminal history because, he said, “I was hoping it would be an eye opener for people to see that efforts to rehabilitate an incarcerated person are largely met with failure. You cannot rehabilitate a person and know whether it has worked because everyone will do anything and say anything to get out of jail, regardless of whether or not they have been rehabilitated.”

“I would like to give back to the community I harmed for so long by becoming a law-abiding citizen who helps knit the fabric of society rather than rip it,” Correa wrote to the parole board. He begged the board to grant his parole petition so that he could “start his life” over again. A short 100 days later, he murdered three people, without fear of execution, because the state’s high court had abolished capital punishment and, sometime later, vacated the capital punishment sentences of 11 other murderers sentenced to death, some of whom were in the process of exhausting their appeals.

Among the 11 whose sentences were set aside in favor of life in prison by Connecticut’s Supreme Court were two prisoners, also on parole, who murdered, after having raped, three members of Dr. William Pettit’s family, a mother and two daughters. Members of the state Supreme Court whose understanding of that crime was far less granular than the jury that found the two guilty of a capital offence simply vacated the jury’s deliberated verdict because the court reasoned, implausibly, 1) that there had been a sea change on the question of the imposition of capital punishment, and 2) the notion that punishment deters crime is much overrated.

This last absurd notion is today one of the operative elements in many prison reform efforts in Connecticut initiated by Mike Lawlor, who had served with Andrew McDonald, now a Supreme Court Justice, as a co-chair of Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee. The devaluation of the deterrent effect of punishment, pushed to its logical conclusion, is an argument that would throw on the ash heap of history all apprehensions by police, all justice proceedings, and all impositions of punishment.

“Unfortunately,” Eric Lindquist told a reporter following the sentencing of Correa, “while my family and I have closure we were looking for, the level of justice, we feel, does not fit the gravity of the crime. I look forward to working with the state legislature in the coming years to reform some of those policies that I view as failures and do better for future victims and their families.”

Victims of crimes all across the state, and legislators, prosecutors and judges who do not leave their common sense at home before setting off to work to advance the public good may pray Lindquist is successful.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...

Maureen Dowd vs Chris Murphy

  Maureen Dowd, a longtime New York Times columnist who never has been over friendly to Donald Trump, was interviewed recently by Bill Maher, and she laid down the law, so to speak, to the Democrat Party.   In the course of a discussion with Maher on the recently released movie Snow White, “New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd declared Democrats are ‘in a coma’ while giving a blunt diagnosis of the party she argued had become off-putting to voters,” Fox News reported.   The Democrats, Dowd said, stopped "paying attention" to the long term political realignment of the working class. "Also,” she added, “they just stopped being any fun. I mean, they made everyone feel that everything they said and did, and every word was wrong, and people don't want to live like that, feeling that everything they do is wrong."   "Do you think we're over that era?" Maher asked.   “No," Dowd answered. "I think Democrats are just in a coma. Th...