I suppose it’s just me, but I find the “Home Invasion” scare that is currently the rage a little puzzling. These incidents are covered as if they represent a species of crime without precedent. We have, in fact, had laws on the books for years that deal with all aspects of this type of crime. Burglary, breaking and entering, assault and battery, murder and manslaughter have all been against the law since the Middle Ages. In fact, if my dim recollection of my law school education is correct, some of them were actually crimes at common law, meaning that there was originally no positive legislation on them. I could be wrong about that, but in any event they have an ancient lineage.
Nor do I quite understand the push for new laws. All of these crimes carry penalties more than sufficient to provide whatever deterrent the criminal law provides, and more than sufficient to punish if punishment is the objective. The legislation that Rell briefly threatened to veto, passed in response to these incidents, might do some good in terms of improving the judicial system or the probation and parole system, but it’s not going to provide deterrence. A potential “home invader” is not likely to pause due to the prospect that there are two laws covering conduct previously adequately covered by one.
What brings this to mind is my growing suspicion that we will see a rash of these incidents as the definition of “home invasion” is broadened, so that the newspapers and TV stations can do what they like to do best: spread fear. Here’s a possible case in point, a story about an incident which, according to the New Haven Independent, has an entire neighborhood “reeling”:
A 55-year-old woman was house-sitting at 97 Loomis Place Tuesday night when three men burst into the house, according to police. They beat her in the head with a baseball bat and tied her to a chair while they looted the home. After stealing some items, including a computer and some ice cream, they drove off in the woman’s car. The woman called 911 at 11:40 p.m.
I am having trouble believing that this story belongs in the big leagues. Of course, I could be wrong, but a few details give me pause. First of all, I am not the strongest person in the world, but it’s hard for me to conceive that I could avoid killing or causing serious brain injury to a person should I choose to “beat her in the head with a baseball bat”. (In my dictionary the first definition of “beat” is “to strike repeatedly”) A baseball bat is a very hard object, and unless one is gripping it only a few inches from the sweet spot, it packs a powerful punch. And I know skulls are hard, but I’d put my money on a properly wielded bat any day of the week. I can’t honestly see why anyone would need to tie someone up after truly beating them on the head with a bat. These invaders must have been singularly inept batters to cause such little injury that the lady was able to call 911 shortly after being beaten. Maybe they were, since they also appear to be rather inept looters, if “ice cream” made the list of specified stolen objects.
I’m not suggesting this was not a serious act. (Double negative, I know, but I’m sticking with it). I’m merely suggesting that the Invasion of the Home Invaders is being seriously overhyped in this state, and that the details of this incident may have been enhanced in the re-telling. We need to take a deep breath and recognize that there’s nothing new under the sun. Not every incident of this sort is a replay of the tragedy in Cheshire, so not every incident of this sort should be compared to that situation, as the Independent does with this story.
Sphere: Related Content
