In 2011, a shocking and horrifying crime took place in Connecticut when Tyree Smith, a man who would later be diagnosed with schizophrenia, confessed to killing a homeless man named Angel Gonzalez. The crime was particularly disturbing because Smith admitted to not only murdering Gonzalez with an ax in an abandoned home in Bridgeport but also removing and consuming parts of his victim’s body, including his brain, an eye, and several organs, in a cemetery. This case has resurfaced in the news as Smith was recently granted a conditional release by the Psychiatric Security Review Board of Connecticut, allowing him to leave Connecticut Valley Hospital in Middletown while remaining under strict supervision and continuing to receive mental health services.
The decision to grant Smith a conditional release has sparked intense debate and outrage, particularly among lawmakers and the victim’s family. While Smith’s doctors, including forensic psychiatrist Dr. Caren Teitelbaum, argue that he has been rehabilitated and is no longer a danger to himself or others, others remain deeply concerned about the safety and justice implications of his release. Smith’s case is a complex and controversial one, raising questions about mental illness, rehabilitation, and the balance between public safety and individual rights.
Smith’s journey through the criminal justice and mental health systems began in 2011 when he was charged with Gonzalez’s murder. However, in 2013, a three-judge panel found him not guilty by reason of insanity, citing his severe mental illness at the time of the crime. As a result, he was committed to Connecticut Valley Hospital for a maximum of 60 years. During his time at the hospital, Smith has reportedly made significant progress in managing his schizophrenia, adhering to his medication regimen, and participating in group therapy and substance abuse treatment. Dr. Teitelbaum described Smith as a “joy” and a calming presence who supports other patients, emphasizing that he has maintained clinical stability and no longer experiences the hallucinations or violent urges that drove his past actions.
Despite these claims of rehabilitation, many are skeptical and fearful of Smith’s release. Republican state senators Paul Cicarella, Henry Martin, Heather Somers, and Stephen Harding have publicly condemned the decision, calling it “outrageous” and “mind-boggling.” They argue that Smith’s crimes—murder and cannibalism—are heinous and that his release sends a dangerous message to victims of violent crimes and their families. The lawmakers also highlighted the victim’s family, who expressed strong objections to Smith’s release. Gonzalez’s sister-in-law, Talitha Frazier, questioned how anyone could be certain Smith would not harm someone again, pointing out that he showed no remorse for his actions. Frazier also shared the fears of Gonzalez’s children and grandchildren, who remain traumatized by the loss of their loved one.
The conditions of Smith’s release are designed to ensure public safety while gradually reintegrating him into society. Initially, he will be confined to the hospital’s grounds but will be allowed day passes. As he demonstrates progress, he may be granted supervised off-site visits. While these measures aim to mitigate risk, critics argue that they are insufficient given the severity of Smith’s past actions. They contend that releasing someone who committed such a brutal and cannibalistic crime undermines public trust in the justice system and puts vulnerable individuals at risk.
This case has sparked broader discussions about the intersection of mental health, crime, and societal accountability. On one hand, the emphasis on rehabilitation and treatment reflects a growing recognition that mental illness often plays a role in violent offenses, and that proper care can prevent future harm. On the other hand, the gravity of Smith’s crimes has led many to question whether release is ever appropriate, regardless of his current mental state. As Smith begins his conditional release, the community will be watching closely to see how the system balances compassion with accountability, and whether it can truly ensure the safety of both Smith and the public. This case serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and challenges inherent in addressing violent crime and mental illness in a just and humane way.
