Martha Coakley, as Attorney General, has presided over a criminal justice system that does a tremendous amount of collateral damage, and could use a lot of improvement. She’s been in a position to do that, and at best, she’s been a weak reformer. What she’s been strong on, throughout her career, is advocating for harsher punishment – whether it be for a mentally disabled convict in Alabama, or an obviously innocent Massachusetts man who was railroaded into jail through egregious prosecutorial misconduct (something Coakley doesn’t seem to care much about), or those two guys who put up Mooninites around Boston.
Which brings me to another big contrast: While they seem to agree on almost every issue except for freedom & the criminal justice system, on many of those issues,
– We know Coakley’s position because she said so
– We know Capuano’s position because he’s voted on it and worked for it in his decade in Congress.
So isn’t it interesting that Coakley has positioned herself as a progressive identical to Capuano on every single issue except for the ones she’s actually been responsible for in her career in public office?
Martha Coakley signed an amicus brief supporting absolute prosecutorial immunity. Read that brief carefully: She has argued for prosecutorial immunity from even charges of suborning perjury. However much the brief may cloak concerns expressed as an elementary defence of the right of prosecutors to participate in investigative interviews (which was not in fact in question, and would not in fact have been impeded), it is a plea for license to prosecutorial misconduct. Coakley could have championed a qualified immunity regime, but opted instead to promote a continued regime whereby person aggrieved have no redress.
You must be talking about a different Martha Coakley. She has been a steadfast defender of all civil rights throughout her career…
But something tells me we both agree
<
p>Thank you for that. It is a concern, and I do wish more folks had a healthy sense of alarm about it.
The thing I will remember most about this campaign is how so many progressives completely dismissed these issues.
it was a main topic during two terms of the Bush Administration but progressives have shown very little interest in examining it in their own candidates, before or after the primary and special election. Let’s give Martha a chance to answer question.
She also donated a lot of her campaign money in 08 to get prop 2 defeated. She is clearly a supporting of the never ending war on drugs, of broad prosecutorial power and discretion, of crushing the civil rights of defendants, a recent supporter of the Patriot Act (as recently as 2007 anyway) and likely by extension FISA, recent supporter of the death penalty (at least by her race for DA) etc.
<
p>I think like Neil says we need to examine these positions thoroughly before we extend her the vote.
<
p>By guess is she is like Dianne Finestein, radically liberal on abortion, solidly liberal on gay rights, moderate-conservative on everything else. That is not what MA needs to replace Ted Kennedy.
But be warned:
<
p>A Democratic incumbent Senator cannot be defeated in the Commonwealth. If you have reservations about the Democratic nominee, this is essentially the sole and only opportunity to stop her. A Republican can only last one term….
<
p>A Democrat will last a lifetime.