"House passes compromise three-strikes bill" by Wesley Lowery | Globe Correspondent, July 19, 2012
The Massachusetts House overwhelmingly voted in favor of a compromise version of the tough-on-crime “three strikes” bill Wednesday night that would eliminate the possibility of parole for habitual criminal offenders, while reducing some mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
This is allegedly liberal, Democratically-controlled Massachusetts, right?
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to be debated Thursday.
If passed, the controversial proposal would end a decade of stalled attempts to change the way repeat criminals are sentenced....
--more--"
"High court cautions Patrick on 3 strikes law; SJC chief cites sentencing rules; Delivers response to Patrick inquiry" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe Staff, July 27, 2012
The chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court said Thursday that the controversial crime bill approved by the Legislature last week does not provide the judiciary with adequate discretion in sentencing habitual offenders, a key consideration for Governor Deval Patrick as he decides whether to sign the measure.
Patrick has until Sunday to decide whether to sign the bill, veto it, or send it back to the Legislature with recommended changes. The high court’s cautions, expressed in a letter to Patrick Thursday, could be a critical factor as the governor comes under increasing pressure from both sides of the debate.
Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland wrote, in response to a query from the governor’s office, that provisions of the crime bill allowing for automatic appeals would not provide the type of safety net over sentencing of career criminals that Patrick sought. Ireland also warned that the Three Strikes bill, if signed into law, could clog the SJC with appeals that would drain resources from the justices’ primary mission....
--more--"
I'm for judge's discretion in most cases because they are there listening to the case.
Besides, when are we ever going to learn that standardized centralization does not work?
"Patrick sends crime bill back; Wants ‘three strikes’ provision eased to give judges latitude" by Wesley Lowery | Globe Correspondent, July 28, 2012
Governor Deval Patrick sent an amended version of a controversial crime bill back to lawmakers on Saturday and said he will not sign the measure into law unless it includes expanded judicial flexibility — a change some legislators said conflicts with the law’s purpose and which they will staunchly oppose.
Patrick praised the so-called “three strikes” bill, which makes repeat offenders of certain violent crimes ineligible for parole after three convictions, but insisted that the Legislature amend the language to include a provision allowing sentencing judges to bypass the three strikes rule for some who have served two-thirds of their sentence or, in the case of a life sentence, 25 years.
Patrick had been pressed last week by Justice Roderick Ireland, chief of the Supreme Judicial Court, to seek changes in the bill that would allow for some judicial latitude in “three strikes” cases.
Republicans in both the House and Senate blasted Patrick’s call for expanded judicial discretion....
House speaker Robert DeLeo, a Democrat, said in a taped interview on WBZ-TV Friday that adding a so-called “safety valve” provision would “really gut the bill.”
The Black and Latino Caucus, which opposed the original bill and is composed completely of Democrats, said on Saturday it is not sure whether the provision would win their support.
A handful of legislators voted against the bill because of its lack of a safety valve provision, and it is unclear how many of them will now support it.
The “three strikes bill” was passed overwhelming by both the House and the Senate earlier this month. Patrick had until Sunday to either sign, veto, or suggest amendments to it....
Senate President Therese Murray said in a statement Saturday that she expects the amendment to be debated early next week.
“The crime bill remains a top priority.” she said. “We will do everything we can to get this bill done by the end of session.”
--more--"
Yeah, good thing the SJC is on the case:
"Advocates, families fight jail phone fees" by Milton J. Valencia | Globe Staff, July 13, 2012
One woman said she had to consider her grocery bill every time the phone rang. Another told her son that she could no longer take his calls, that she could not afford the fees.
That is because the callers were behind bars, and every time they call, it costs the person answering far more than regular collect calls, in some cases $10 for a chat of just a few minutes.
The high phone rates for prison calls, inflated by surcharges, also draw the ire of public defenders, who say they are spending more than $100,000 a year accepting collect calls from jailed clients.
Oh, the PHONE COMPANIES behaving JUST LIKE BANKS, huh?
Ummm, Americans, YOUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM has been BANKRUPTED by the MONEY JUNKIES!!
“It’s a huge amount for any one of us to pay, just for a single phone call,” said Bonita Tenneriello, a staff lawyer with Prisoners’ Legal Services, an inmate advocacy group. “The families, they often don’t have a lot of resources, and for them it’s a real hardship.” Some calls can carry a surcharge as much as about $3 before a conversation starts.
How much do they get for giving blood?
Now a team of inmate advocates, public defenders, prisoners, and their friends and families have joined in a petition to the state Department of Telecommunications and Cable, asking the regulatory agency to reduce what they call the astronomical costs outside vendors charge for phone calls from prisons.
After years of complaints by inmate advocates, the department opened a case in the fall, and a long-awaited public hearing is set for Thursday.
At issue is how much the vendors who run the phone services from jails and prisons can charge for phone calls and whether extra commissions that they pay to the prison facilities, part of their contracts, should come from the vendors’ profits, or from families struggling to pay the bills.
Two corporations run the phone services at the majority of the state’s prisons and county jails: Securus Technologies of Texas and Global Tel Link of Alabama.
No Massachusetts companies could handle it?
Representatives of those companies could not be reached for comment, but the companies have opposed the rate reductions since the Department of Telecommunications and Cable opened the case.
The companies have also maintained that the rates are proper for the costs of operating and that the surcharges are allowed by state law....
Ju$t because it is legal does not make it right!
--more--"
Good luck getting a lawyer:
"Defendants must prove need for court-appointed attorney" by John R. Ellement | Globe Staff, July 13, 2012
In a decision that stands to save taxpayers money, the state’s highest court ruled Friday that people facing criminal charges carry the burden of proving they cannot afford to pay for their own lawyer before a judge appoints a taxpayer-funded lawyer for them.
Isn't it incredible? Something I actually want my tax dollars going to and.... sigh.
The court also said the range of people who may be required to contribute to a person’s legal defense — before taxpayers start paying the bill — can include defendants’ spouses, parents, and even girlfriends and boyfriends.
What, they left out the children?
Meanwhile, THIS STATE SHOVELS TENS of MILLIONS EVERY MONTH into DEBT SERVICE to BANKS that DEVISED the FRAUDULENT DEALS upon which the DEBT is BASED, and they give away TENS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS EVERY YEAR in corporate tax credits and breaks!
Massachusetts: the MONEY-GRUBBING STATE!
In three companion rulings, the Supreme Judicial Court said defendants are in better position to detail their financial condition than a judge or the state Probation Department, which now handles the task. And, for the first time, the SJC said the burden of proof is on them.
That just seems so unconstitutional to me.
--more--"
So did he sign it?
“It will be on [Patrick’s] conscience ‘when’ — not if — the next innocent victim or public safety officer is killed in the line of duty by a career criminal.”
Looks like a threat!
"Patrick rebuffed on amendment to 3-strikes bill" by Michael Levenson and Adam Sege | Globe Staff | Globe Correspondent, July 31, 2012
Lawmakers sent a controversial crime bill back to Governor Deval Patrick Monday after roundly rejecting an amendment he had proposed that would have given judges some flexibility in sentencing repeat offenders.
The move effectively dared the governor to sign the bill, despite his concerns about the lack of judicial discretion, or veto it and risk the wrath of legislators, victims’ families, and prosecutors who have been pushing for it. He could also do nothing and let the bill become law without his signature.
However, time is running short. Lawmakers are scheduled to end their legislative session at midnight Tuesday. If Patrick were to veto it after that deadline, lawmakers would have no chance to override the veto, so the legislation would effectively die.
The decision has left him in a standoff with the vast majority of Democratic and Republican legislators, who are urging the governor to sign the bill.
Patrick refused to say Monday what he plans to do. He insisted the bill would have been better if legislators had approved his amendment.
Giving judges some flexibility is “not about letting anybody off,” Patrick said.
“The question is whether, after serving a significant amount of time, there are circumstances where a third-time felon ought to be eligible for parole,” he said. “I think there are circumstances we can’t anticipate, where we’d like to see a judge have the authority to consider that.”
Even as Patrick was speaking, lawmakers were rejecting his amendment. The House voted, 132 to 23, to turn back the changes the governor wanted. Minutes later, the Senate followed suit, on a voice vote without debate.
The legislation that lawmakers approved establishes a list of 46 serious crimes — including murder, rape, armed burglary and home invasion — that would count as a “strike” against an offender. Offenders who commit three strikes from the list would lose the chance for parole. Convicts would have to be sentenced to at least three years in state prison for the offenses to count as a strike against them.
At the same time, the legislation decreases punishment for some nonviolent drug offenses....
Time to legalize that. Would also help clean up the probation office.
The decision could have larger ramifications for Patrick’s political future.
WHO CARES about THAT? We are talking about people's lives here!
The governor, who has been traveling the country, speaking to Democratic groups, risks alienating liberals and African-Americans if he signs the bill. Both groups have stood by him throughout his career and worked hard to elect him....
Those groups have learned they are just taken for granted now.
--more--"
"Patrick to sign crime bill, calls it imperfect; Strong feelings by foes, backers" by Michael Levenson | Globe Staff, August 01, 2012
Governor Deval Patrick, under intense pressure from police and from victims’ relatives, said Tuesday that he would sign legislation that removes the possibility of parole for certain repeat offenders, even though he believes the bill does not give judges enough flexibility in sentencing.
“It’s not a perfect bill, it’s not a comprehensive bill, but it does some good,” Patrick told reporters after he toured a Roxbury nonprofit group that seeks to reduce youth violence.
The bill was opposed by many of the governor’s closest allies, including liberals and African-American activists and lawmakers. Some said they were stunned that he decided to sign it.
I'm not.
They had believed that Patrick, the state’s first black governor and a former member of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, would veto legislation that they argued would exacerbate an incarceration crisis among black men and lead to untold prison costs.
“I am shocked,” said David J. Harris, managing director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School. “It’s clear he felt the pressure from certain victims and felt he was going to be able to mollify them.”
Patrick announced he would sign the bill just hours before the legislative session ended with a flurry of last-minute action at midnight Tuesday.
The legislation removes the possibility of parole for offenders who commit three serious, violent felonies, such as murder, rape, and home invasion. The offenders would have to serve at least three years in state prison for one of the felonies to count as a “strike” against them. At the same time, it makes some nonviolent drug offenders eligible for parole.
Patrick said just six repeat offenders — people who have done “some pretty nasty things” — will lose the chance for parole each year under the legislation. But 600 nonviolent drug offenders will now be allowed to plead their cases to the Parole Board, he said.
The governor said he decided to sign the bill after legislative leaders promised they would try to reduce strict sentencing rules for certain drug crimes when the new legislative session begins in January. That issue is a Patrick priority and seems likely to become the next major battleground in criminal justice policy in Massachusetts.
“It’s not a complete bill,” said Patrick. “The bill only speaks to one small corner of the criminal justice system, but we still have mandatory minimum sentences rife throughout our criminal sentencing framework, and that needs to be dealt with. It’s a system of warehousing people that has failed.”
Prosecutors are likely to oppose any attempt to roll back sentencing rules for drug offenses. While Patrick argued the rules have crowded state prisons with drug addicts, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said they have helped prosecutors target major drug dealers.
“The connection between drug trafficking and violence is apparent to anyone who works in this field,” Conley said.
“I object to the governor’s classification that these individuals serving these drug sentences are low-level, nonviolent drug offenders,” he said. “They’re not. And it shows me he really does not have a firm grasp, at all, of who’s out there in our cities and communities” causing violence.
But Edward F. Davis, commissioner of the Boston Police Department, said he shares Patrick’s concerns about mandatory sentences for drug offenders. He said he was a narcotics officer when tough sentencing laws were passed in the 1980s and “it made our job more difficult.”
“The fact that someone has 14 grams or 28 grams of an illicit substance in their possession doesn’t make them a kingpin,” Davis said. “There’s a lot more that goes into that, and I think the judges can decide who the real bad guys are and put them away.”
Echoing Patrick’s concerns about crowded prisons, Davis said: “Our jails are too full of people who are there for mandatory minimum sentences for small amounts of cocaine and heroin, and I think we have to rethink that whole proposition.”
Patrick’s decision to sign the repeat offender bill ends one of those most contentious debates of the legislative session.
The governor wanted legislators to give judges some flexibility in sentencing repeat offenders. He contended that every case is unique and there were dangers in putting “the business of justice on automatic pilot.” But lawmakers rebuffed his proposed changes Monday and sent him the bill without granting judicial discretion.
Victims’ families, police, and the majority of legislators said they were relieved the governor decided to sign the bill, despite his reservations. “A lot of people are going to sleep better tonight, including me,” said Les Gosule, whose daughter Melissa was raped and murdered by a repeat offender in 1999. Gosule has lobbied for the bill for more than 10 years, and met several times with Patrick to urge him to sign it.
Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and a Patrick supporter, said he was disappointed the governor decided to sign the bill even though it does not give judges leeway in sentencing. “This was a chance for him to stand tall and say what he truly believes about this bill,” Ogletree said. “The idea of having no judicial role seems to be wrongheaded and in the opposite direction of a tough but fair bill.”
As Patrick announced he would sign the legislation, lawmakers were racing to approve other major bills before their session ended. The House and Senate both passed Patrick’s top priority, a sweeping, 349-page proposal to reduce healthcare costs that was unveiled only hours earlier.
The House and Senate also passed a compromise of the so-called Right to Repair bill, which would require automakers to provide diagnostic software to independent repair shops.
That bill, which has drawn heavy lobbying from auto makers and auto-parts manufacturers, is slated to go on the November ballot.
But advocates on both sides of the issue said that if Patrick signs the bill, they will now tell voters the referendum is unnecessary.
--more--"
Related: Patrick backed down on crime bill
Deval Patrick signs repeat offender crime bill in private State House ceremony
Also see: Legislature postpones extending statute of limitations for child sex abuse
