At recent Pioneer Institute event SJC Chief Justice Ralph Gants used his time to decry mandatory criminal sentencing in a well thought articulate presentation based on law and facts.
Following Gants on the Playbill was Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley who, upon hearing Judge Gants’ remarks, threw away his notes and went broken arrow.
This lightweight who thinks he’s a super heavyweight ripped into Gants in what has been described by many there as very unprofessional. (a lawyer can disagree with a judge but the higher the judge the outward respect shown rises exponentially. The SJC Chief is BIG regardless and Dan talked down to him. Punk.)
Dan said Gants and those who think like him are a mess. The broken window policies 1990s work is his mantra.
DISTRCT ATTORNEYS KNOW BETTER THAN JUDGES AND EVEREYONE ELSE WHAT THE PROPER SENTENCES FOR CRIMINALS ARE AND MANDATORY SENTENCING MAKES SURE THEY CAN CONTROL SENTENCING RATHER THAN JUST RECCOMMEND.
That is Dan Conley’s position.
Real simple folks.
Public policy and we as schmucks want our district attorney to have discretion. It’s a good thing. That’s why they have a lot of discretion. We want that. Let’s them clean out the shit. Take each case and each person as a new hand of cards and play what you have. Therefore they can stop bad stuff from happening. We want that. People make bad decisions and sometimes cops make bad decisions. (I know, hard to believe, but they do)
And if the D.A. is being a dick on a case, which they are often and by often, I mean every single day somewhere; you can plead your case to a judge and/or jury.
THEN if your found guilty you can plead your circumstances to the judge who then will consider all the relevant facts on this particular case and hand out what she thinks is a fair sentence.
That’s how it works. Goes back to all this Greek shit about justice and stuff. Fucking law schools around the world are full of poindexters who all agree on this basic principal. It’s a given.
The judge is the fairest person in the courtroom. Not the lawyers. And especially not lawyer politicians elected to be there, like the D.A.
Mandatory sentencing flips this around. The judge can’t change the charge the D.A. brought and can’t consider anything in sentencing unless she wants to up the minimum mandatory.
BUT Dan says he knows best so there should be mandatory sentencing allowing him to charge someone and determine the sentence.
Did you know there are people serving minimum mandatories because the car they were in was pulled over within a school zone rather than a block or two before or after? That’s how mandatory sentencing is used btw. OR
Remember the kid in school who first sold fireworks, then football cards and finally in his junior year sold bones and small bags? Remember him? An American icon.
Anyway, having never been arrested for anything, should he do mandatory jail time for getting caught by the school police officer passing a nickel bag in the boy’s room? Dan says yes.
Unless he decides no. But that’s his decision and his alone. Capiche? I’m Dan Conley and I’m important.
D.A.s are suppose to see that people don’t get screwed like this. But they don’t.
Question: Why do our state treasurers have to be 100% supporters of the lottery and why do many D.A.s feel they have to charge everyone with the toughest crime available and follow through with the gusto of The Incredible Hulk?
I not gonna mention the opportunities corupt district attorneys and assistant district atorneys have to make milions of dollars when there is big criminal money invested in their seemingly everyday decisons. Like not charging drug dealers with mandaotory minimums but a lessor charge. Opportunities aren’t as great without the mandatory minimums.
Who is going to run against Dan Conley in three years?