Anyone who was getting a wee bit impatient for Governor Patrick to take action on Boston’s crime problem can settle down a bit. The Gov announced a wide-ranging set of proposals today. The press release speaks for itself, so I’ll just reprint it.
Governor Deval Patrick today announced a series of anti-crime initiatives including additional money for statewide summer jobs programs for at-risk youths; a new statewide Anti-Crime Council to help address gun and gang violence; and $2.8 million for Boston for prevention and intervention programs and increased enforcement.
“Violent crime is not just a Boston problem and it is not a new problem. It is a constant threat to the security and safety of all our families in communities across Massachusetts and requires a coordinated and comprehensive approach in order to provide and ensure stability for our streets,” Governor Patrick said. “This is critically important to this administration and we must step up our efforts not just in law enforcement but also in community-wide crime prevention, particularly as summer approaches, to allay fears of a further spike in violence.”
The anti-crime initiative immediately provides $5.4 million for a Statewide Summer Jobs Plan, including $4.4 million in Workforce Development Grants for Summer Jobs and $1 million in Byrne Memorial Grants for Summer Jobs. The package also provides $250,000 in matching grants to support Violence Intervention Advocates in emergency rooms statewide.
The package also provides the City of Boston with $550,000 toward prevention and community policing programs. The Administration also allocates $350,000 in new funds to bring total state grants for summer jobs programs in Boston to $2.25 million. State agencies also will partner with the Private Industry Council in Boston to offer summer jobs for at-risk youths through the “Classroom in the Workplace” program.
“The entire Commonwealth has a stake in our cities,” Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray said. “We must view crime and violence in our urban neighborhoods as a problem that requires shared responsibility between all of us – including neighborhood residents, community leaders, religious leaders and, of course, government. And not just city government, but the state as well. It is only by coordinating our governmental resources – between the city and the state, and between particular agencies and departments of both – that we can successfully address this epidemic of crime and violence.”
Additionally, Governor Patrick announced he will issue an Executive Order creating a new, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary Anti-Crime Council to focus on the present challenges facing crime victims, social service providers and Massachusetts law enforcement organizations. The administration is also exploring how best to enhance information sharing between state agencies regarding at-risk juveniles – including school officials, juvenile court personnel and probation officers, representatives from district attorney’s offices, social workers from the Department of Social Services and others – in devising a comprehensive, coordinated response for meeting the needs of this vulnerable population.
The Patrick-Murray Administration will also file anti-crime legislation, which includes:
- Mandatory Post-release Supervision and Support for Re-Entry. Requires that all sentences to a jail, house of correction or state prison include a period of post-release supervision. Focuses on the 20,000 inmates released from incarceration each year. Importantly, 49 percent of all inmates recidivate within one year.
- One Gun Per Month. Limits gun buyers to the purchase of just one firearm per month, a measure already working in California, Maryland and Virginia. The measure targets “straw purchasers” who buy guns for convicted felons and others prohibited from owning firearms. Also augments the reporting requirements for private gun sales.
- Pre-trial Detention for Gun Offenses. Adds firearm offenses to the list of crimes considered in the “dangerousness hearing” statute, where, after a hearing, a person can be held without bail pending trial.
- Felony Punishment for Using a Firearm in a Crime of Violence. Any offender who commits a misdemeanor that involves the use of physical force against another while armed with a firearm will be punishable by up to 10 years in state prison.
I’m particularly happy to see the focus, via the new Executive Order as well at Lt. Gov. Murray’s comment, on inter-agency cooperation. Governor Patrick talked during the campaign about breaking down turf squabbles among agencies, and he actually did that during the church burning investigation while he was at DoJ. That strategy worked well in Boston in the 1990s, and it’s high time it was put into place again.
“Mandatory Post-release Supervision and Support for Re-Entry.”
we already have parole and probation officers. They are supervised. If the defendant serves his full sentence and has no probation, parole, or suspended sentence hanging over his head (very rare) then there is no legal or constitutional right to require anything more of him.
<
p>
Bull shit recommendation
<
p>
‘Felony Punishment for Using a Firearm in a Crime of Violence”
<
p>
there r plenty of laws already on the books that address this. crime of violence with firearm can already send you away for a long time.
<
p>
another bullshit recommendation
<
p>
“Pre-trial Detention for Gun Offenses’
<
p>
“One Gun Per MonthI’ll give him that but it will do little.”
<
p>
This is more of deval’s crap
Also, I don’t understand why you’re against post-release supervision.
Massachusetts releases 20,000 convicts from prison or jail a year, and according to the Crime and Justice Institute, less than 30 percent of them are subject to post-release supervision by probation or parole officers. They finish their sentences and are dropped back into the same neighborhood (often penniless) and forced to depend on the same sleazy friends they got into trouble with before – or the sleazy friends they met in prison. This is the unintended consequence of the Weld/Cellucci tough-on-crime laws that imposed mandatory minimum sentences and “truth in sentencing” requirements that took away the ability of law enforcement to keep tabs on dangerous ex-cons. Martha Coakley (for one) supports changing those laws, particularly truth-in-sentencing, because when you suspend part of a criminal’s sentence pending good behavior, it’s easier to throw him back in jail if he re-offends without having to go through a new trial for a new crime – and the thugs know it.
mandatory probation or parole period after release?
<
p>
ok. not bad.
<
p>
But if they violate then what they go back to the can? that is a never ending trap. like the old baseball reserve clause. Talk about owing someone’s ass. if they served their sentence what sends them back? they don’t owe anything. so waht does this post release do? social work? THEY DON”T need social workers they need jobs. earing living wages.
<
p>
The plan can’t work. Defense lawyers and constitution won’t allow it. But a hybrid of the plan could.
Murray is absolutely correct…nothing is going to get better until there ia a full court press from all levels of government working in concert not at cross purposes to end the violence in these urban neighborhoods. What the Administration proposed today is just a part of a broader plan needed to make a real difference.
<
p>
You are good with throwing the bricks, Ernie…how about some mortar?
In 1991 or 1992 there were 150 murders in boston in that one year. More than twice the current murder rate. The local and feds got together and did a good job of solving the problem. There are already enough laws on the books. Deval and others act like this is the first time we have had violence and crime in boston. These laws just make the no nothings in the suburbs think something is being done. But it is false hustle.
<
p>
We have solved the problem before. Perhaps there should be some discussion with those that solved the problem in the early 90s. Before Menino was mayor. Before Dan Conley was DA. Before US Attorney Mike Sullivan knew who george w bush was.
<
p>
But you know what they did have in the early 1990s? They had more than enough laws to solve the problem. They also had cooperation among state, city, and federal agencies and community activists (Black clergy).
<
p>
History repeat5s itself over and over again. Useless redundant laws which gives a false sense of security.
<
p>
So i n 10 years when we have another problem we will just enact more useless laws. Meaning these new ones are no good.
<
p>
This is a gang war between poor disenfranchised ghetto kids. (remeber the Irish gand wars in Boston in the early 60s? No, I doubt you do.) sometimes innocent people get caught in the cross fire. This is not a crime wave but a crime war. These things can be stopped. But not with additional laws.
<
p>
We can’t solve the gun problem but we can do a lot to minimize the shootings and murders.It has been done before yet no one is going back to find out what was done.
The homicide level when Menino took office (1993) was still around 120/year, dropped to a low of about 34, I believe.
Ernie writes: “They also had cooperation among state, city, and federal agencies and community activists (Black clergy).”
<
p>
Isn’t that exactly what Tim Murray is talking about (and has been talking about for quite some time…given that’s what they did in Worcester)?
<
p>
One thing we agree on Ernie is that new laws to paper up the problem are not the answer…it’s enforcing the laws we have, it’s attacking the root of the problem which feeds the beast in the poorest urban neighborhoods…not just in Boston…there are streets in Lawrence that even the police will not drive through at night (they park at the ends and prevent non-locals from inadvertantly taking a wrong turn down a dangerous street)…
<
p>
Think creatively: Most gang leaders could be locked up if statutory rape laws were enforced and prosecuted! Recognizing that impregnating 14, 15 and 16 year old girls is what it is…a crime.
“Most gang leaders could be locked up if statutory rape laws were enforced and prosecuted!”
<
p>
But what about students at Lincoln-Sudbury High School.
<
p>
Oh wait. We are just going after Black kids.
I would lock up any guy over 18 that preys on these girls from 12-16…they walk away, the girls are stuck forever…Lincoln-Sudbury…Wincheter High…Boston English…don’t matter to me…I suspect it would only take a few well-publicized convictions to get their attention.
This is an item that could hold the most promise for long-term postive effects. Does anyone know the details on this?
They did a crime, they did the time, they’re free. They should not committ a crime again. Obviously jail is not much of deterrent, thanks to Deval’s work as Assistant Attorney General fighting for the “civil rights” of inmates vis a vis fully inflated basketballs et al.
“They did a crime, they did the time, they’re free. They should not committ a crime again. “
<
p>
Only an ignoramus who doesn’t really care about creating safer, healthier, and more productive communities for all of us would think and say this sort of thing, IMHO. Life has complexities; we don’t all start out with equal opportunities in life, both in terms of internal resources and external ones. Not dealing with this fact honestly and constructively as a society impacts us all…
…but only moderately.
<
p>
One Gun Per Month. Limits gun buyers to the purchase of just one firearm per month…. The measure targets “straw purchasers” who buy guns for convicted felons and others prohibited from owning firearms.
<
p>
Just how is it supposed to “target” “straw purchasers”? I suppose that it slows them down, but it certainly doesn’t stop them.
<
p>
Guns don’t wear out so quickly that gun purchasers would need to buy more than one gun a year, or maybe even a decade. If they are a gun dealer that’s another issue that can be handled in other ways, but not for the ordinary purchaser. Limit the purchases to one per year or per decade, possibly with the caveat that a purchaser can “turn in” a gun within the time period to acquire another one.
<
p>
Pre-trial Detention for Gun Offenses. Adds firearm offenses to the list of crimes considered in the “dangerousness hearing” statute, where, after a hearing, a person can be held without bail pending trial.
<
p>
I am vehemently against this. The purpose of bail is to ensure that the accused show up at trial. Pre-trial detention, without bail is tantamount to a determination that the accused is presumptively guilty, before a trial. There are technologies that can be used to track accuseds’ movements prior to trial. They can and should be used.
<
p>
Felony Punishment for Using a Firearm in a Crime of Violence.
<
p>
Does anyone recall the Bartley-Fox law? I don’t do criminal law, but what I read lo these many years ago–after moving to Massachusetts–the prosecution would use BF to induce a suspect to plea-bargain for a greater sentence than the basis crime would have provided. I suspect that this provision would have the same effect–plea bargain it away.
The Commonwealth is placing restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Pathetic.
<
p>
Why should someone who has gone through the process of obtaining a firearms permit be limited to one gun a month?
You can still buy 12 guns a year, per person. How many guns do you need? It’s not like he’s saying you can only buy one bullet per month.
“Need” has NOTHING to do with it. How many cars do you “need”? How many square feet of housing do you “need”? How many of ANYTHING do you “need”?
<
p>
It’s the principle of it. The law-abiding gun owners of the Commonwealth are having their rights restricted because of the behavior of criminals, and that’s ridiculous.
The law frequently puts constraints on our actions in order to protect the society at large. For instance, few people think it unreasonable that law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry guns onto airplanes.
<
p>
So exactly what “principle” are you talking about that makes it wrong for the Government to restrict the frequency of gun purchases?
How many of the murders by firearm in Boston do you think were committed by law-abiding gun owners? And do you think limiting the number of guns law-abiding gun owners may purchase in a year will affect gun crime even one bit?
<
p>
Here’s a hint: Criminals do not give a shit about laws.
This rule would be about allowing people without a record to make tons of money buying a bunch of guns and SELLING them to criminals. By making the rule you can only buy once a month, you curb that business model. But the average person who would like to buy a hunting riffle now and again will not have his rights curbed.
<
p>
And how many crimes were committed by criminals with guns stolen from law-abiding gun owners?
<
p>
We regulate tobacco, we regulate alcohol. Guns are at least as deadly as those substances, actually more so. So why bitch and moan about one and not the other?
tobacco and alcohol aren’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
<
p>
Besides, buying a “bunch of guns” and selling them to criminals is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
<
p>
What people seem to forget is that a gun is a nothing more than a tool. Blaming a firearm for a murder is about as intelligent as blaming Ted kennedy’s Oldsmobile for killing Mary Jo Kopechne.
<
p>
If guns weren’t available, murders would still be committed. The focus should be on criminals, not objects.
the person to die would always be the intended victim. with guns, that is frequently not the case. ever heard of a drive-by strangling?
What does that have to do with the issue at hand?
<
p>
Answer this question: Will limiting licensed firearms owners’ ability to purchase more than one gun a month have any impact whatsoever on the use of guns by criminals?
if those licensed owners are in the business of reselling guns to people who otherwise couldn’t buy them.
<
p>
“But that reselling is illegal,” you cry! We should arrest them for that, not for buying too many guns, because law-abiding hunters often need to buy six or seven guns a month!
<
p>
The problem, of course, is that it’s very difficult to control the illegal reselling. Being illegal, it’s done in secret, you see.
so I’ll keep this brief. If Boston violence existed in a vacuum then yes, your line of thinking might make sense. But even an outright ban of firearms in MA (or in the US for that matter) would have zero affect on Boston street crime. Just as our experience with narcotics has shown; the laws of supply and demand couldn’t care less what `new’ laws are on the books.
A strong, stable economy would go much further in decreasing territorial violence in the long term, statewide.
I generally agree with your bottom line — that a big economic boost would do a lot of good.
<
p>
But, obviously, a total ban on firearms in the US would have an effect on street crime. There are lots of reasons it will never happen, nor (probably) should it, but if it did, it would certainly cut down on the gun supply. Wouldn’t eliminate it, but would cut it down.
is mentioned in the bill of rights. Yet speech is regulated all the time, despite the seemingly uncompromising “shall make no law” language of the 1st amendment. Is your position that all gun regulation is unconstitutional because of the 2nd amendment?
… that there are around 20,000 laws on the books already in regard to firearms.
<
p>
And I will say for the last time: limiting law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms will have no effect on crime. Period.
<
p>
Citizens of the Commonwealth must already take a firearms course, pass a background check, and be licensed by their local PD to own firearms. And each time they buy a firearm, thay have to pass an NCIC check. These folks aren’t the onse you have to worry about.
…the sad fact that you have is that gun owners are not “law abiding” unless they abide by the law. If the law says one purchase per month, per year, per decade or per century, that, my dear friend, is the law. If someone wants to exceed the limitation, then they are not law abiding gun owners.
<
p>
Do you need the proverbial 2-by-4 swatted between your eyes like the proverbial donkey to make you understand that?
Really, thanks for posting that. It added zero to the discussion, but whatever…
<
p>
We’re discussin whether Deval’s proposal will have any effect on crime. And until someone can show me how limiting access to guns for LAW-ABIDING citizens will help, I’ll consider it to be bullshit.
that your question has been answered upthread, yet you studiously avoid noting that fact, instead insisting that no one can do it.
<
p>
So, you’re looking for bullshit? There’s a big mirror over your sink.
…MY question wasn’t answered. I wanted to know how limiting the rights of LAW-ABIDING citizens will help. The email you referenced said:
<
p>
“if those licensed owners are in the business of reselling guns to people who otherwise couldn’t buy them.”
<
p>
Those folks aren’t law-abiding.
<
p>
So once again, I’ll ask how limiting the rights of LAW-ABIDING citizens will help stop criminals from using firearms.
I know of no legal premise or political theory that says that a law must not affect or restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. In fact, there are many laws that prevent people from doing Action A because Action A leads to Action B far too often.
<
p>
Think in terms of alcohol. The rights of law-abiding citizens are limited all the time. It isn’t inherently bad to be drunk, yet there are laws that prevent someone drunk from being served alcohol, and there are laws against public drunkenness. And while it is legal for someone over the age of 21 to drink beer, there are laws that force the owners of package stores and bars to ask for ID.
<
p>
Think in terms of driving. We all have to obey the same speed limit. Why? Because excessive speed leads to more accidents. Is it possible to speed and avoid getting into a horrific accident? Sure. Is it possible to drive recklessly yet commit no other crimes? Absolutely. But we accept the premise that we need to follow basic rules to make the game of driving safe.
<
p>
Likewise, limiting people from purchasing more than one gun a month might be an inconvenience to a small number of people, but it will eliminate the people who disregard the law against reselling guns to people who shouldn’t have them by being essentially straw buyers.
<
p>
It might not stop their behavior, but it sure will slow it down; this reduction in guns on the street will drive the prices up, hopefully higher than what a 14-year old can afford.
“I know of no legal premise or political theory that says that a law must not affect or restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.”
<
p>
You must be joking. Have you ever even heard of the Bill of Rights? How about the thousands of legal decisions regarding them?
<
p>
“Think in terms of alcohol. The rights of law-abiding citizens are limited all the time. It isn’t inherently bad to be drunk, yet there are laws that prevent someone drunk from being served alcohol, and there are laws against public drunkenness. And while it is legal for someone over the age of 21 to drink beer, there are laws that force the owners of package stores and bars to ask for ID.”
<
p>
Yes, there are laws that prevent someone drunk from being served alcohol, just like there are laws against using a firearm in the commission of a crime. What does not exist is a law restricting the purchase of alcohol to one case of beer or two bottles of wine per month. As for the ID to buy alcohol, gun owners are already licensed to the hilt.
<
p>
“Likewise, limiting people from purchasing more than one gun a month might be an inconvenience to a small number of people, but it will eliminate the people who disregard the law against reselling guns to people who shouldn’t have them by being essentially straw buyers.”
<
p>
An inconvenience?!?! It’s more than that, it’s a restriction on their Constitutional rights!!
<
p>
If you have no problem with limiting the rights of one group of citizens to protect the rest, I’m sure you’ll have no problem with the State limiting which internet sites you can visit, which type of vehicle you can drive and what persons you can hang out with. After all, it’s for the good of the State.
<
p>
Let’s face it, any one-gun-a-month law will have ZERO effect on crime.
It is very easy for the editorial writers, the Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace types, and the fear-mongers to whip themselves and, too often, our elected officials, into a loathsome lather, only to push ever-stricter sentencing measures WHICH DON’T WORK. I dare anybody here to spend three hours researching this matter, whether you read the Harshbarger Commission report, the policy papers at the Crime and Justice Institute, the works sponsored by Mass. Inc. or the Boston Foundation, or any reasonable scholarly effort, and then come back here and claim that tough sentences work.
<
p>
The fact is, harsher sentencing, such as the ill-conceived drug mandatory sentences for school zones and the like, end up denying inmates opportunities for supervised work release, step-down to less restrictive classification, and parole (yup, parole already exists, and is a supervised release from prison or jail). If you lock someone into maximum security for ten years, then dump him on the street with no treatment, no education, no work skills, and no supervision, he’ll likely (40% chance or so) be back within a couple of years. But if you give that same person some treatment, some education, some training and some supervision, you cut the odds of recidivism by a good third, and I suspect it could easily be more.
<
p>
For evidence, look at the programs being run by the more forward-thinking sheriffs, like Sheriffs Cabral, Garvey and Ashe.
<
p>
Folks, we’re spending $1 BILLION dollars a year to keep all these folks locked up, only to watch them turn quickly through a revolving door back into prison. That means wasted taxpayer money, broken families communities, and more crime victims.
<
p>
It’s time for a little creative thinking. I wish the Governor good luck in reshaping the narrow thinking that has governed criminal law policy for too long now.
Gov Patrick needs to stop pandering to Boston.
<
p>
He should tell Menino if he needs money to hire police or for summer jobs to propose a Prop 2 1/2 override.
<
p>
The state has continually under funded the suburbs and they are forced to pass overrides to cover expenses. This is while giving a disproportionate amount of money to Boston.
<
p>
Trav is gone, perhaps now somebody will tell Menino to raise his own money from Boston taxpayers and quit crying.
<
p>
As noted before, Boston generates one of every four dollars of state revenue, but only 18% of its budget is state aid.
<
p>
Besides, Boston does much of the heavy lifting for the region, we disproportionately build the affordable housing, house the homeless shelters, deliver services to those in need, take on the transportation impact of those who commute to and from work by car from outside the city. We house great institutions of learning, cultural institutions and hospitals who are tax exempt, we house the federal regional center and much of state government — no wonder less than half our land is taxable.
<
p>
Boston does this because that’s what great cities do, carry the load for the region. Years ago, then- Reading State Rep. (and later State Senator) Mike Barrett wrote a brilliant piece for the Globe Magazine on why he, as a suburban representative, should support cities like Boston (because, in part, of the regional impact of the institutions listed above). I believe one thing he did was to take you across the city while stepping on a minimum of taxable land.
<
p>
The Governor knows that great cities are necessary for a great commonwealth, that’s why he’s talking about commuter rail to New Bedford and Fall River, visiting nanotechnology projects in Lowell, and youth programs in Boston.
<
p>
Note also, that many of us who are residential homeowners in Boston have experienced tax increases in recent years due to the drop in commercial real estate values. So we are getting our tax increases without the additional revenues that overrides provide, thank you.
<
p>
Look, everyone can complain — the suburbs get too much lottery aid, some cities (not Boston) have almost their whole educational system paid for by the state and Boston gets the lions share of “additional assistance” (though that has been sliced and diced). The real question is, how to expand local aid and cut property taxes, which are the most regressive form of taxation.
<
p>
Interestingly, the Republican legislature in Florida was debating a measure recently to reduce property taxes and allow localities to raise sales taxes (sound familiar?). The ratio of the two, however, is such that even with the increased local taxing authority, cities and towns would face cuts. Perhaps some better chefs can cook up a different formula.
<
p>
PS – there was a small note in Metro today that the Committee on Taxation was going to take up local option tax proposals, etc next Tuesday (which is also Opening Day, hope the Sox start hitting before then …).