No one disputes that a defense lawyer’s job is to provide the best defense for his or her client. Any attorney that does not pull out all stops to try to get a client acquitted, or at least a lesser sentence, should consider another profession. But, sometimes an attorney will use a defense strategy that can have a negative impact on the lives of other prisoners. Such is the situation now being played out in Connecticut. The Court, the legislature, the Department of Correction, the CT chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and many anxious prisoners are all set for the battle brought about by Attorneys Jerimiah Donovan and Walter Bansley III on behalf of their client, Joshua Komisarjevsky.
In a case that made international news, Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes were charged with the 2007 Cheshire, Ct home invasion that left Jennifer Hawke-Petit raped and strangled, and her daughters,11-year old Michaela, and 17-year old Hayley, dead. Michaela was also sexually assaulted. Gasoline was poured on the body of Mrs. Hawke Petit, and on the girls while they were still alive. A match was lit, and the house went up in flames. Dr. William Petit, who was beaten and left for dead, managed to escape.
Hayes was convicted of the murders, as well as several other charges, and earlier this year he was sentenced to death. At this time, Komisarjevsky is in the process of picking a jury for his trial. His lawyers, in an effort to spare him the death penalty, are trying to prove that Hayes was the mastermind behind the home invasion and the murderer of the Petit women. Karmisarjevsky’s legal team will attempt to provide evidence alleging that Hayes’ prison reading material inspired him to kill and burn his victims. Donovan and Bansley will try to convince the jury that when Hayes read Truman Capote’s best selling book “In Cold Blood,” a true story based on the murders of the Clutter family in Kansas in 1959, he was filled with the desire to imitate the crime upon release.
While there has been relatively few murders connected to reading a book, at least one CT lawmaker believes books depicting graphic violence should be banned in prisons. Senator John Kissel, (R-Enfield), is concerned about some of the 24 prison library books Hayes read before his release. In October 2010, Kissel threatened to introduce legislation that would force the CT DOC to change its prison library policy. Kissel has been vocal about his search for possible connections to the books and the murders, and in media interviews asked why such reading material is allowed in prison.
The Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (CT ACLU) counters with “Why not?” Attorney David McGuire of the ACLU believes that using books as a cause for violent crime is a smokescreen used by politicians to deny First Amendment rights to prisoners.
Kissel would like CT DOC Commissioner Leo Arnone to look into guidelines used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons regarding reading material. Kissel may be in for a surprise, as the FBOP allows almost any type of book to be read by inmates, with a few exceptions. Books deemed to be a threat to the safe and orderly running an institution are banned. A book in this category would include “The Anarchist’s Cookbook,” as well as any reading material with instructions on bomb making, or on the construction of other weapons. Martial arts books, are normally banned. The FBOP will also ban a book based on an inmate in the federal prison system. This type of ban is primarily for the protection of the inmate. Books that promote racial or cultural violence may also be banned. While Sen. Kissel would like to see all books that depict violence be banned in prisons, including best sellers by authors such as James Patterson, Patricia Cornwell, and Greg Iles, Deborah Caldwell-Jones, deputy director of the American Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Office, has another point of view.
Caldwell-Jones believes that a book should not be banned from a prison because it contains sex or violence, and declared, “No one has ever stated that reading violent materials causes anybody to commit a crime. Somebody that is moved to commit a crime has much more going on in their lives than simply having read a few comic books or a novel or 'In Cold Blood.” One can wonder what would be banned next due to graphic content. Newspapers? Television? The Bible?
A few years ago the FBOP decided that only certain books would be allowed in its chapel libraries. The FBOP went through the long, tedious, and costly process of having prison chaplains compile a list of “acceptable” books. All religious books not on the list in were removed. Inmates filed lawsuits stating that the FBOP was violating their First Amendment rights, as well as their right of freedom of religion. The Court agreed, and once more an ill-conceived policy was abandoned.
Reentry Central published an article on 3/3/11 concerning a law suit brought by Prison Legal News against Sheriff Freddie Poor of the Galveston County Jail. Sheriff poor took it upon himself to ban books, magazines, newspapers, or other types of reading material from the jail. Sheriff Poor reached a settlement with PLN, and was ordered to buy subscriptions to PLN, as well as other magazines, and to buy several law, educational and self-help books for the prison library.
Commissioner Arnone will undoubtedly give considerable thought to this issue before making a decision. Perhaps he will take into account the fact that in Connecticut there are approximately 18,000 people locked up. Reading is a way many inmates pass their time. Reading is a passive activity. A inmate who is reading is not generally engaging in destructive activities, therefore allowing correctional officers to attend to more pressing matters. The average reading level of inmates is that of a fourth grader. Reading should be encouraged, not discouraged, claim educators. Millions of people, both inside and outside of prison, read books in America each year. The vast majority of these readers do not act out scenes from the books they have read. Any attempt to deny the incarcerated population the pleasure of reading, when there is no clear evidence that reading is harmful, is a gross violation of First Amendment rights, say those against book banning. Battle lines are being drawn. In the end, will the jurors believe that Joshua Komisarjevsky is not to be blamed for taking part in a heinous crime? After all, those damned book Hayes read are to blame, or at least some will like you to believe.
|
|
|
|
