So Brian McGrory heartily approves of Governor Patrick’s move to oust most of the Parole Board, and some of its staff. Terrific. So do I, for the record.
But in an otherwise pretty good column, stuff like this drives me bananas.
Liberals and other assorted inmate advocates are squeamish about whether this will put a damper on future parole decisions…. And his fresh support for harsher sentences for repeat violent offenders will cause no small stir among his fussy liberal base.
Um, excuse me, but which “liberals” are the ones who like criminals and want to see them roaming the streets? That seems to be who McGrory is talking about, but I don’t know any of them. I’m certainly not one of them. Maybe that makes me not part of Patrick’s “base.”
Don’t get me wrong – I do agree that liberals tend to be opposed to knee-jerk, reactionary “tough on crime” policies that cost a lot while not actually doing anything about crime. But insisting that people on the Parole Board be accountable for their actions? And supporting long sentences for “repeat violent offenders”? No problemo.
And while we’re at it, here’s a common misconception that McGrory repeats:
the reality is that [Parole Board members] serve at the pleasure of the governor.
Actually, they don’t. Parole Board members are appointed by the Governor for five-year terms, and they can be removed during those terms only for cause. What Patrick did in this case is demand, and receive, their resignations. Which makes his actions all the more impressive.
I think the implication is that we are perfectionists. Poor gov. Poor everybody, dealing with us.
<
p>All fine if we’re Patriots fans complaining about two losses and not looking at 14 wins.
<
p>But we’re more like Red Sox fans in late 2003. Always so close, but never quite there.
<
p>As Judy says, progressive politica is a life sentence without parole.
<
p>
…like serving a life sentence with no hope of parole.
<
p>Especially appropriate comment to this diary I think. The visiting Quakers are going to be spread pretty thin for a good while.
I think that when sentences allow for parole, and prisons are overcrowded, and especially when times in general are bad, this kind of severe recidivism will occur from time to time. It has happened before, and it will happen again despite this uproar and upheaval. Perhaps a policy of firing the whole parole board for every murder committed by a parolee should be somehow enshrined in law, but to me this act by Patrick seemed more like political pandering than something that will likely result in either a safer public or a more just society. I would have liked to see a breakdown of how this parole board’s decisions and results compare to other states, past parole boards, etc, and then perhaps not be left with the impression that all of this was in response to one emotionally charged incident.
McGrory wrote:
<
p>Perhaps this is the kind of stirring Massachusetts G.O.P. competence he had in mind:
<
p>
<
p>In a broader sense, just another example of how much more accountable the norms of mainstream Internet-based punditry are than traditional media commentary. On any decent blog, McGrory would have been expected to link to an example, however tenuous, of the “fussy liberal base” he claims exists (let alone “Republican competence”). Here, there is not a link to be seen, perhaps much like the fussbudgets he imagines.
Republicans can only win if they project competence. Romney dresses for, looks like, and plays that part well.
<
p>Actual competence is a different more boring matter.
When Brian McGrory says “liberal” in one of his columns, you can probably bet that “fussy,” “aghast,” “fretful” or “Chardonnay-sipping” are somewhere nearby. Which, I agree, is annoying.
<
p>And odd, too, because he often takes liberal positions. In the column just before this one, for example, he criticized the National Rifle Association on the same grounds that he’s criticizing the fussy liberal base today — for its opposition to what he regards as common sense laws. In that case, he was talking about laws restricting access to guns. How did he describe the NRA? Not as “fussy,” you can be sure. The NRA is powerful — so powerful it can even force Congress to bend to its whims.
McGrory does not seem alone. A lot of people seem to have liberal opinions but would not like to self-identify as liberal.
<
p>Since at least Reagan, the word has been demonized.
Why would anyone want to serve on the Parole Board, at this point? I have yet to read the report, but, assuming they worked with the information given to them, they may have made the best decision given the circumstances. And they were wrong. And eventually they will ALWAYS be wrong, no mater what the system. Humans are terribly unpredictable, which you can predict.
<
p>So you will eventually fail, be publicly excoriated, and shamed, and your resignation demanded. This is “accountability?”
I’d just make sure never to vote to parole anybody.
I can’t guarantee a parole board seat in Massachusetts, but with your values you have an excellent chance at winning a judgeship in Texas!
<
p>Can you ride a horse?
n/t
have more accountability than political punditry. Just say anything – nobody calls you on it, recycle some cliches and conventional wisdom that fit a template, hope the Globe stays in business before you reach retirement…
I meant to say
Has he looked at the conservative base at the moment? We look reasonable to the point of spinelessness in comparison.