Attack of the Home Invaders
posted by Elaine Chiu
Thanks to Dan Solove and the rest of the gang at Concurring Opinions for inviting me to be a guest blogger this month. When you are lucky enough to teach and write in Criminal Law, frequently there are moments when class materials, current events and your own scholarship intersect. This past week I taught the 1985 case of Tennessee v. Garner in Criminal Law and in the local news, there were renewed calls in Connecticut for legislative solutions to respond to a recent pair of violent home invasions. In the first invasion, a pair of convicted felons out on parole terrorized and sexually and physically assaulted a family in the sleepy town of Chesire in July 2007 before finally burning down their family home and killing the wife and two daughters. In the second invasion, a registered sex offender walked into a home where two neighbors were having coffee in New Britain and ended up physically assaulting one of them while stealing the car and killing the other.
Most states would rely on traditional offenses such as intentional homicide, aggravated burglary, robbery and assault to prosecute these episodes. However, some states have begun to define a relatively new crime known as home invasion or home invasion robbery and to attach much stricter sentences and parole policies.
Supporters argue that unlike plain ol’ burglary which has long been regarded as a non-violent crime (see the majority opinion in Tennessee), home invaders are purposely or knowingly violent because they engage in conduct with such high risks of violence. For example, as James T. Hurley explained in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, home invaders target certain vulnerable residents and not residences and then often gain access to residences by using sheer force or scams. They bring with them certain tools like firearms, masks, handcuffs, tape and other bondage equipment in order to quickly get residents under their control. These items are rarely on the list of classic burglar’s tools. Perhaps the biggest distinction lies in the complicated motives of home invaders. “[M]any home invaders enjoy the intimidation, domination, and violence of the offense.”
On a certain level, this new offense sounds an awful lot like the knee-jerk reaction of politicians trying to placate the fears of constituents who are reacting to the sensationalist nature of some unfortunate, but still rare, violent murderous burglaries. As one police lieutenant put it, if prosecutors and judges apply the maximum penalties of classic burglary and assault laws and ordered consecutive sentencing, this new crime is really unnecessary.
Even if both detractions are somewhat true, it is still refreshing to see the criminal law differentiating among the motives that may lead a criminal to invade a victim’s home. The criminal law so rarely engages with motive in a meaningful way. It remains to be seen whether it will successfully do so here.
April 4, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
Leave a Reply