What bothered me, personally, the most about the draft platform is that while it had plenty to say about “tough on crime” and law enforcement, the Draft Platform says nothing about access to justice, nothing about an independent judiciary, checks and balances, or that the Judicial Branch is an equal branch of government. In fact, the Draft Platform does nothing to affirm any commitment to justice at all. Here is my proposed substitute for discussion:
Proposed Amendment to the Draft Platform
In place of “Article VIII Public Safety and Crime Prevention” insert:
“Article VIII Open Courts, Access to Justice, and Public Safety
Democrats fully support Article XI of the Massachusetts Constitution, the “Open Courts Clause”, which states: Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.
Therefore, Democrats support for the Judicial Branch as a co-equal branch of government, fully funded to ensure access to justice across the entire Commonwealth; access to justice which includes all indigent legal defense mandated by G.L.c.211D, civil legal services, prison legal advisors, and Mental Health Legal Advisors. As Democrats, we affirm that an independent judiciary is essential to democracy and therefore commit to full support for the judicial branch of government.
As Democrats, we understand that crime originates from many causes, including but not limited to addiction, poverty, and mental illness. We therefore reaffirm our commitment to a sufficiency of treatment beds for addiction, the elimination of poverty in our lifetime, and a sufficiency and availability of treatment providers for mental illness to end the so-called “school to prison pipeline”.
As Democrats, we believe that public safety requires not only support for vigorous enforcement of laws, but the elimination of crime through social change.
While I’m a healthcare professional and not a legal system expert, I want to say that Amberpaw’s amendment sounds extremely important and sensible. I do have extensive experience observing the failures of our mental health and addictions services components of the healthcare system while working with Boston’s Healthcare for the Homesless Program for over 3 years and through other nursing work. The harm being done by the ever-growing “Prison Industrial Complex” is exactly the opposite result from the kinds of preventive programs that do work, if given a chance and funded adequately.
<
p>Prevention costs less financially and in human costs, in the short run–and in the long run, too.
Proposed Amendment to the Draft Platform
<
p>In place of “Article VIII Public Safety and Crime Prevention” insert:
<
p>”Article VIII Open Courts, Access to Justice, and Public Safety
As Democrats, we understand that crime originates from many causes, including but not limited to addiction, poverty, and mental illness. We therefore reaffirm our commitment to a sufficiency of treatment beds for addiction, the elimination of poverty in our lifetime, and a sufficiency and availability of treatment providers for mental illness to end the so-called “school to prison pipeline”. As Democrats, we believe that public safety requires not only support for vigorous enforcement of laws, but the elimination of crime through social change.
Massachusetts Democrats fully support Article XI of the Massachusetts Constitution, the “Open Courts Clause”, which states: Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.
Therefore, Massachusetts Democrats support:
<
p>a. The Judicial Branch as a co-equal branch of government, fully funded to ensure access to justice across the entire Commonwealth
<
p>b. Access to justice which includes all indigent legal defense mandated by G.L.c.211D, civil legal services, prison legal advisors, and Mental Health Legal Advisors.
<
p>c. As Massachusetts Democrats, we affirm that an independent judiciary is essential to democracy and therefore commit to full support for the judicial branch of government.
<
p>d. Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) reform including the sealing of juvenile records, and minimizing the impact of non-conviction and non violent CORI on employment, including an accessible, rational process for correcting and amending inaccurate CORI.
<
p>e. Minimizing incarceration, including through decriminalizing economic offenses, so only those who truly present a danger to society are incarcerated; Massachusetts Democrats deplore the current situation where a greater amount is spent on incarceration every year then is spent on higher education.
<
p>
How do you or any other member of the State Committee hope to get this even heard when you have members like Steve Fradkin who wants a platform that any one can run on?
<
p>
We are willing to elect anyone who says he is a Democrat, regardless if he supports the platform or not. Why do we even bother to have a Party then is all we are interested is to count up how many elected officials we get elected. This accomplishes nothing, and is a simple minded and lazy response to the hard work that is required to advance a true democrats values and goals. What if Ted Kennedy took this easy out decades ago on Health care would we be talking about ti today, in my opinion we would not. The Platform needs goals and tough goals to keep working for trying to accomadate Democrats in Name only is a slap in the face to everyone who has stood holding a sign or written a letter or gone to a rally to support our values.
<
p>This entire platform is nothing short of a sellout and should be scrapped from the preamble on out.
<
p>If elected officials have such a problem with our goals then maybe they should try the Republican party if they don’t they may become a progressive individuals target next election.
<
p>Just so you know I do come from a to say the least moderate Democratic District that I am sure would love to see us back away from equal rights and freedom of choice and the death penalty but everyday and every election I work to educate and to convince them of why I don’t agree. We won this city for the governor the first time in 16 years a democrat carried it. It was a lot of hard work and phone calls and GOTV but even a moderate slightly conservative city could embrace our Platform with the right candidate.
<
p>This Platform is a shift into the Unenrolled column as far as I can see and the member of the SC who helped form it says so as well.
<
p>Shame on us!!!!!!
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
I don’t know that it will pass – or what will happen to this proposed/draft/whatever platform that you and I find so uninspiring, and lacking in Democratic values…but it is worth some effort to remind my fellow Democrats as to the Declaration of rights, and what access to justice is all about.
Collect the signatures and get it onto the floor. Mr. Fradkin definitely represents one school of thought and they have every right to debate as well. Ultimately it is for the convention to decide which version prevails. It occurs to me that at the beginning of the platform process we were discussing a single page value statement as sort of a cover letter or executive summary for a more detailed platform. Now we risk having a platform which is a value statement in its entirety and a pretty generic one at that. Why can’t he have both the generic value statement AND a more detailed platform, which I thought was the original plan anyway?
Ask it please and post the answer
<
p>Thank you
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion