When should a life sentence mean life?
And, if the momentum to reform parole and sentencing continues to build, how close will the state come to locking up repeat burglars for
30 years?
This is the subject of tomorrow’s Friday Throwdown online news chat at the Boston Herald, 12-1.
Join in.
It’s hard enough to get convictions — what’s the rush to free violent criminals once law enforcement finally gets them locked up? Why should violent criminals who have unleashed terror and heartache on individuals and families early in the terms of their sentencing?
From the Throwdown story on the Herald website:
“Dominic Cinelli, Daniel Tavares Jr., Michael Gentile.
They had all been successfully prosecuted and jailed for multiple crimes. They were all released from prison by Massachusetts authorities. They all went on to commit murders once freed.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
Edward Corliss
Daniel Tavares freed by a judge appointed by Romney.
<
p>Edward Corliss freed by Romney’s parole board, 2 of the members who are still on the board and voted to free Cinelli.
…but as long as parole was part of the sentence I’m reluctant to second-guess the specific decisions of the parole board.
There was no excuse for releasing these criminals. They needed to die in prison. They all had been convicted of multiple violent felonies.
<
p>
…but then he should have been sentenced to three life terms WITHOUT PAROLE in the first place. If the sentence allows for parole we can’t start complaining everytime the Parole Board decides that such is merited.
Where is the respect for the individuals who have been injured or killed by these thugs. Being eligible for parole doesn’t mean it should be granted. Charles Manson is eligible for parole I would assume (maybe falsely) that you would expect it to be denied to him.
…but if you want to guarantee it doesn’t happen, don’t give the option in the original sentence.
Stop throwing people in prison for minor, victimless drug offenses, and we won’t end up paroling killers to make room.