Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Time for Criminal Sentencing Reform

By

The Boston Globe was kind enough to publish an op ed piece by me this morning, Fixing our criminal sentencing system. I hope that we can keep discussion focused on sentencing reform at the State House this term.

Everything BMG folks could do to urge reforms in mandatory sentencing, school zone drug policies, drug policy in general, improved parole opportunities, and better programs for drug treatment (instead of prison) would be of great benefit to the Commonwealth.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. … was the Nixon administration who got that it was cost effective to treat the addict rather than the criminal . Basic free market principles, no demand, no supply needed.

    <

    p>Know Marijuana abusers, George Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Arnold Schwarzenegger Lets get real here folks!!!

    <

    p>Also electing tough on circumstances politicians and not tough on crime would help.

    • As far as I know at least some of these tried it a handful of times, which I wouldn’t call abuse.

      <

      p>I’m open to decriminalization of marijuana and possibly mandatory in-patient treatment rather than prison for non-dealing users.

      <

      p>Dealers are another story.  I’m not sure I want to revise the school zone laws.  People who get other ensnared especially if said others are kids are among the greatest menaces to society.  We can lock them up for a good long time as far as I’m concerned.

      • If you look at the statistics for school zone offenses you will see they occur primarily in urban areas, where the whole city tends to be in a school zone because of the distribution of schools. Most school zone offenses occur away from schools, do not involve students, and do not occur during school hours. Those are some of the problems with the law, which had an undeniably reasonable intent, to protect students. It just has not worked out that way. The law disproportionately affects minorities. Also, the enforcement varies widely from county to county depending on the philosophies of the district attorneys.

        <

        p>I do not suggest coddling drug dealers, but the mandatory sentences end up dumping ex-cons straight to the streets after they wrap up their sentences, instead of allowing for supervised parole during the last third of the sentence. Parole is a lot cheaper, and the parole board can help inmates get situated with housing, job opportunites, and other transition issues. Doing that is a matter of public safety: crime rates are reduced by parole supervision.

        <

        p>Saving money, reducing crime, rebuilding families and communities, it all goes hand in hand.  

        • Of all school zone arrests, how many are in urban areas?  What percent are minorities, compared to overall drug arrests.

          <

          p>I certainly agree that we can’t have convicts “time-out” unsupervised…how often does that occur?  Would it be possible for the original sentence to stipulate the jail time and then probation after the jail sentence.  I think the public gets frustrated when the media reports that someone was sentenced to 9 years and they are released in 6, with parole the remaining three years.  Sure the “system” probably intended that to happen at sentencing…but the media doesn’t report that and therefore the public does not understand the true intent…they just see someone getting out 3 years ealier.

          <

          p>In general, that is my overall comment about your piece.  I probably agree with your general points, but feel a little uncomfortable NOT wanting mandatory miniumims.  To John Q Public that sounds reasonable.  I think there maybe a communication gap between the legal community and the public perceptions and your presentation may fall flat with John Q.  

          <

          p>You are effective pointing out that we’re spending more money on prisons than public higher ed, but you may want to hammer on how little we spend on addiction treatment (maybe $30 million…I don’t know).  As a tax payer I want to spend $10,000 a year on a drug treatment bed instead of spending $40,000 a year on a prison bed.  The same is true with mental health.  I think you’d have a more receptive audience pointing out the lack of dollars spent on prevention vs punishment.  Even though you did, it gets clouded by mandatory sentencing and John Q thinks that all you want to do–a defense lawyer advocating against mandatory sentencing.

          <

          p>It’s late and I’m not proofing this…sorry for the mistakes.  

          • frank,

            <

            p>what do you mean you prefer 10k for the treatment bed v 40k for prison bed?

            <

            p>that makes sense at first, til you think about it — aren’t most of the inmates dealers, each with scores of customers?  

            <

            p>if you tried to “dry up demand”, seems like it’d be a lot of 10k beds, perhaps 500k worth to dry up the demand associated with a single deealer…notwithstanding the many users who won’t take treatment even if offered free….

            <

            p>

            • …and there are dealers focused solely on making money.  The latter tend to be higher on the food chain and those are the folks we all want to see get hard time.

              <

              p>Then you have the street dealer who often deals to fellow addicts (I’m more referring to the opiate class dealer–pot is another story) to feed there own habit. These folks may deserve some jail time, but get them treatment also.

              <

              p>What I’m really referring to is getting drug users into treatment programs BEFORE they committ crimes against persons or property to feed their addiction.  Just last week there was the case of a herion user shot and killed by police after he robbed a bank.  I’m making no judgement of the events of that day, but one has to wonder if this kid (he was 20) could have received long-term treatment before all this and that horrible day last week could have been avoided.  Maybe he was arrested for a minor charge in the past and got probation–to bad there was not a drug court in place and treatment beds available and the story could have been different.

              • about how many addicts, when offered drug treatment, accept it (and complete the program?)

                <

                p>a lot of smokers who are offered free cessation classes/products reject them.  

                <

                p>i’m just curious if lack of treatment beds is a big issue or a small issue compared to the total drug ecosystem.  

                <

                p>and thanks for your response.  

                • Rhe Romeny/Healey budget cuts in 02/03 literally wiped out publicly funded treatment beds and adversely impacted a number of private treatment facilities that relied on some public funds.  Since then we’ve been crawling back from this whole while opiate related deaths continue to peak.

                  <

                  p>I will concede that most addicts will not and do not seek treatment–that’s why they are addicted.  But as an alternative to prison, there are a variety of strageties that society can implement–like long-term treatment programs that addicts are “sentenced” to, or a more aggressive implementation of Drug Courts–that are worth a try, compared to unsurpervised (relatively speaking) probation or prison.

        • …but if the whole city is a school zone that’s perfectly fine with me.  Maybe we should just eliminate the school zone designation entirely and be tough everywhere.  The law only disproportinately affects minorities because minorities disproportionately live in the cities.  As for parole, I think it should be in addition to a jail sentence as opposed to counted against the original sentence time.

        • Note a related post of mine:

          <

          p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…

          <

          p>Pretty appalling that in a democracy, we incarcerate more folk, per capita, then any other country.

          <

          p>I agree that saving money, and strenthening families all  require treatment of addiction, adequate housing, and jobs rather than mushrooming rates of incarceration.  

          <

          p>It costs far less to educate then to incarcerate by every metric.

      • As far as I know at least some of these tried it a handful of times, which I wouldn’t call abuse.

        <

        p>…but under the letter of the current repressive laws that is how they would be referred to.

        <

        p>As to dealers I agree that they need to be held accountable but still it gets back to the no demand no supply (or suppliers) to help contribute to bringing the more serious drug problems under control.

    • I want to see how many people are doing 5-10 for simple possession.

      <

      p>First of all—many of the distribution complaints are plea bargained down to simple possession and trafficing is reduced to distribution and many possession charges are CWOF’d pt result in pre trial sentencing or simple probation.

      <

      p>This individuals who are doing state time are hard core, career criminal, drug trafficers and they can staty there for thirty years. After these individuals, AKA walking piles of excrement, have done a year or two, then the cash and the bling doesn’t seem quite as shiny. Gee that’s too bad. Please feel free to increase my taxes by 25% to allow these people to spend the remainder of their lives in prison. There is an inordinate number of non whites facing long stretches for drugs. Very likey because there are an inordinate number of non whites who are dealers and trafficers.

      <

      p>I don’t care about these people and I would venture to guess that most taxpayers don’t care as well. I wish the state legislature would make B&E a 20 to life offense and authorize the use of deadly force when someone is caught red handed to a B&E.

      <

      p>Our society didn’t condone and glamorize, sex, drugs, and violence 50 years ago. It was looked down upon, and those who engaged in it were to be avoided. Now it’s the “in thing.”

      <

      p>People are perplexed by the escalating domestic violence, rampant drug use and attendant travails, 50% of teenagers walking around with STD’s, escalating abortion, mental health issues. You reap what you sow.

      <

      p>Keep these people locked up. Require that an individual incarcerated attend school to read and write. Require demonstrated proficiency and a GED a provision of release.
      Require two years of stringent supervised parole after release. Drug testing by hair—once a week.  

  2. If prison time is reduced for drug dealing (not just drug possession), how do communities with significant drug-dealing get relief?

    <

    p>We have a lot of crime in Springfield. Much of it is related to drugs and gangs. It is concentrated in a few neighborhoods — neighborhoods I wouldn’t venture into after dark.

    <

    p>We have instances of home invasions where gangs raid other gangs in search of drugs or drug money. We have instances of drive-by shootings, likely tied to drugs. We have instances of murders over drugs.

    <

    p>So if my city can’t rid itself of drug dealers, what can we do to combat the violence and fear that accompanies drug dealing?

    <

    p>Treatment will only reduce demand for the drugs — which is a good thing. But without jobs for the unskilled people doing most of the dealing, won’t the competition for the fewer remaining customers simply get more fierce?

    <

    p>How many of you have drug dealers living within 1/4 mile of your houses, dealing drugs while kids walk by going to school? One of the schools in Springfield is virtually surrounded by drug dealer houses. Should we just ignore that? Will you send your kids to that school?

  3. Do we pander or really tackle the issue?  Only the folks on Beacon Hill know.

    <

    p>Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center (MASAC) has an excellent program for a captive audience. This program located at Bridgewater has limited beds.

    <

    p>Maybe the sheriffs across the state could replicate this program and bring recidivism down.  

    <

    p>Addiction or compulsive behavior is a tough nut to crack!

    <

    p>

  4. is looking weak on crime.  They are a Howie Carr article away from being placed in the moonbat limelight.  I thinking the Globe op-ed started the process but what’s needed is a specific counter.  If we have statistics that show drug offenders in a program like you propose, and then show who currently re-offends and who in the program (elsewhere) who re-offends.  Drugs often bring on other crimes, show how we can actually reduce crime by this program.  It’s unfair that one side needs to show the stats and the other can just yell moonbat and sit on their behinds and do absolutely nothing, but when you want to reform I think you need to make a strong case on why it works.

  5. Does a four time drunk driver – given rehab twice as punishment – who runs over a cyclist get another free pass, or should they go to jail for killing someone?

    <

    p>Does a person who picks up a stranded motorist and then rapes and buries her body on the beach just need self esteem couneling?

    <

    p>Does a bank robber who runs over an 85 yr. old woman while driving away need probing about issues rather than incarceration?

    <

    p>All real, all on Cape, which doesn’t penetrate Boston media much – except when the bank robber on probation wins the Lottery or something ‘funny’ like that.

    <

    p>The entire premise of this diary is that drug abuse is at the root of all crime.  That is preposterous.  We have home invaders preying on the elederly, we have serial robbers and shoplifters, we have abusive spouses, we have ‘terminators’ – spouses who have decided to commit suicide, and decide to kill their wives, too, since they OBVIOUSY can’t survive without them (some wives have been waiting years for the old coot to kick off..).  We have rapes, we have arson, we have car theft, we have…

    <

    p>Should there be more treatment?  I would say yes for those who want it, but anyone even glancingly familiar with 12 step programs will tell you that until the addict THEMSELF – not a judge – wants treatment, it is just sullenly endured as a condition of punishment, and has little impact on behaviour.  That’s why drunk drivers ‘assigned’ to AA drive drunk to the meetings – they don’t actually care about being healed, they just got caught.

    <

    p>Meanwhile, the actual Sheriffs who must enforce existing law, rather than law as BMG might like it to be, are being stiffed by the Governor and the Legislature.  How about we solve THAT problem first?

    • The entire premise of this diary is that drug abuse is at the root of all crime.

      <

      p>…that not all drug use is criminal and that addressing that was proven to contribute to the only known drop in drug use and drug smuggling which is the above referenced Nixon years.

      <

      p>Just throwing a lot of anti crime  angst with the most heinous examples mixed in for good measure of when it didn’t work verbiage  to cover up the more complex nature of the problem is another one of the contributing factors to the problem. Makes a great political sound bite but in practice only cleans up the mess (and in truth does a lousy job of that), and costs a lot, but it sounds like you are doing something if you say $30 billion program for crime fighting over and over again while qouting stories of child rapists

      • Or the molotov cocktail recently tossed into the bedroom window of sleeping children in Hyannis.  Or other worse stuff.

        <

        p>So please, don’t accuse me of sound biting.

        <

        p>BTW – the only county jails affected are those where there are active counties – Bristol, Barnstable, etc.  Payroll abuse counties, like Suffolk in today’s paper, are already taken care of by the state entirely.

        <

        p>I would suggest finding out what is the population of drug related offenses in the jails affected by the deliberate shortfall in the budget, instead of blaming them for the continuing carte blanche delivered in urban areas.

        • …but you where using the same sound biting that tough on crime politico’s who chest pound (which is who I was referring to with the $30 B/Rapist innuendo) use all the time and yes they always slide into the worst to get attention.

    • I wouldn’t mind lightening up on the possession incarcerations in order to dramatically toughen up on other perps.

      <

      p>I would abolish parole and other early release for any crime in which violence was commited or threatened.

      <

      p>The examples you cite above should not get out of prison at all.  But they have to let these people out now to make room for the poor shmuck who got picked up with a few ounces of crack, which is a travesty.

    • what if for example you can say with the programs offered, the number of re-offenders decrease from what they are now.  Less crime.  Would you be interested?  That’s what he is talking about, I think you are completely missing the point.  I posted that specifics might help the cause above and case in point is your post.

  6. A couple of other points and some responses:

    <

    p>You can get lots of details on who gets sentenced for what, and all the other details about convictions and sentences, from the Sentencing Commission.

    <

    p>One of my points was that we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world, by far. Are there that many more criminals in the US than the rest of the world? Are we really such tough people that we need to have the longest sentences in the world?

    <

    p>The fact that there are drug houses on every street corner in some cities is obviously a horrible thing. It speaks ill of the effectiveness of enforcement efforts. But fundamentally, it points to the serious problem with addiction. We obviously need to examine other models to get the drug trade away from the gangs and other criminals, and to treat addiction in more effective ways.

    <

    p>Keep in mind that it sounds great to sentence a bad guy to prison for 20 years. That only costs about $1 million (the current cost of a prison bed is $48,000 per year). That’s a lot of taxpayer dollars, no matter how good the economy is.

    <

    p>I think the press is starting to change its pespective on sentencing issues. There will always be commentators who want to holler and scream about politicians who are “weak” on crime, but I happen to think that the noise is losing force. The Boston Herald, for example, was opposed to a new mandatory minimum on child rape. There is a lot of editorial support for revising the criminal system, and more politicians are willing to say things which make perfect sense.

    <

    p>Peter cites a few horrendous examples of crimes which will always get serious prison time, whether drug-related or not. Thee is a relatively small number of especially horrific crimes, but they tend to get the most press, which would lead one to believe that there are thousands of crimes like that in Massachusetts every year. There are not. A lot of crime is, however, traceable to problems with drugs and drug addiction.

    <

    p>Do I have all the answers? I surely wish I had more. But it is hard to say the system is cost effective. Read the Harshbarger report (I’ll track down a link and post it) if you want a detailed analysis and a lot more recommendations.

Archives