This past week, there has been a flurry of press regarding the seriously declining health condition of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi. Emily Rooney and Margery Egan both devoted shows/columns to the call to bring Sal DiMasi back to Massachusetts to serve his sentence or to give him a compassion pardon. The Brockton Enterprise editorialized www.enterprisenews.com/article/20140213/OPINION/140218305 about it and Norfolk Sheriff Michael Bellotti had a letter to the Editor in the Boston Herald (similar to one he sent to the Boston Globe earlier).
The criminal justice system has spoken on this case, all appeals have been exhausted. This is no longer about guilt or innocence. DiMasi has been held accountable and is serving his (some would say excessive) sentence. Now the question of accountability shifts to the federal authorities: the US Attorney’s office, US Atty General Holder (and his boss Barack Obama and his friend our Governor Deval Patrick)
DiMasi’s cancer was diagnosed in prison but treatment was deliberately withheld for months while the US Atty tried to “squeeze” him. DiMasi was finally treated with radiation in excessive doses that burned him. He was being fed with a tube, losing weight at a fast rate and relying on Boost to keep his weight from falling further. The Boost was rationed to him. His bankrupt family is required to travel across states for restricted, brief visits. There is a cruel and unusual punishment going on here. There is a death penalty going on here and the punishment does not fit the crime.
Sal DiMasi was found guilty. The sentence was excessive to “make an example.” We all get that. The presiding Judge even recommended that DiMasi serve his sentence at Devens (a federal medically equipped prison facility) to lessen the hardship on his family. But, the feds had other ideas and agendas. Now is the time to stop this injustice. Now is the time for Gov. Patrick, and our Congressional delegation to intercede with Pres. Obama’s federal prison system. Now is the time to move DiMasi to Devens or, even more appropriately, to grant him a mercy pardon or parole.
Whatever bad DiMasi may or may not have done, no one, especially progressives who sought his help with numerous causes, can deny he accomplished a lot of good, too.
Please call on our “leaders” to do the right thing. Stop this death penalty.
Sal DiMasi is serving federal time. He is serving federal time because the feds caught him, the feds put him on trial, and the feds put him away. Or, put another way, Massachusetts declined to do any of these things… And, as sure as there is a God, Sal DiMasi is still paying for Massachusetts sins as well as his own.
The question isn’t “why is Sal DiMasi suffering in some other place?” but rather the question is “why did Massachusetts let him go?” Well, either they were complete in their moral cowardice or they were unwilling to open the complete and comprehensive can of worms that a state indictment would bring. Either way, the sins continue to this very day.
Abraham Lincoln, in his second inaugural penultimate paragraph had this to say:
Crimes have costs, and somebody always pays those costs… and, yes, oftentimes, the cost is born by those who don’t fully deserve it. You don’t want Sal DiMasi to pay any more? I think that’s a virtuous, perhaps even righteous, position. But he is paying those costs because somebody else isn’t… Because Sal DiMasi wasn’t alone in his sins…. Because the black and rotten heart of the Massachusetts pols who know exactly how far his guilt extends, and where the guilt beyond that lies, don’t have the guts to step to it.
because it was a federal conviction and it was up to them where he would be sent. OTOH, his treatment, or more accurately, lack of it, medically speaking, has been inexcusable. At this point, because we don’t know the full story of his current condition, he should remain imprisoned, but he should be returned to a local facility where his family can see him, and he should be getting regular, intensive treatment for his illness, as much as is medically needed.
is that MA authorities should have been the ones to prosecute him, rather than totally dropping the ball and having the feds swoop in to take over. And, had Sal been convicted under state instead of federal law, he obviously would be in a MA prison.
What you say is only part of my point.
The remainder is simply this: calling upon “Massachusetts Leaders” to let Sal DiMasi come home will not, in fact, be an example of “doing the right thing”; It will be more coverup of the wrong things they’ve already done and when DiMasi is at peace somebody else will have to suffer because of the unpunished crimes that remain out there.
Now this is not endorsement of the status quo. Quite the opposite. would, very much support alleviating the suffering of Sal DiMasi. But if he was punished more than he deserved it was because someone out there was punished less so: I very much fear that giving anyone cover of “doing the right thing” (when they are not) is merely a fig leaf, rather than an act of compassion, that will allow them to say “well, that’s done and over. Let’s move on.” While crimes and corruption continue to this day.
And, to be completely honest, I don’t even care that people who have, so far, gotten off are particularly harshly punished. I just want the corruption to stop. I want to live in a true CommonWealth Instead of living in a world in which the fed has to jump in and do the work of the CommonWealth and further feels the need to play games with peoples lives like this… all because some petty critters in the legislature want to feel potent and important.
Most, if not all of Sal DiMasis suffering could have been avoided if Massachusetts leaders did then, what they are being asked to do now… the right thing. But it’s too late for that, in itself, to be the right thing now. They must do more than just let Sal DiMasi come home to be doing the right thing.
I was not calling on Mass leaders to pardon him…DiMasi is under the control of the federal, not state, prison system…I was calling, am calling, on Mass “leaders” to intercede with President Obama to get action. He has the power to pardon DiMasi (as he did Gov. Patrick’s cousin at Christmas time)…enough is enough. And certainly a word to Obama from his friend Gov. Patrick or our Senator Elizabeth Warren would go along way toward getting action on this.
… I just disagree with it. I, personally, would be fine with a DiMasi pardon, either by the fed or by Mass or by both… just so long as they don’t try to say that ends the matter. It does not.
And what proof do you have that this has not been attempted? Maybe they tried and failed? Certainly the situation is dire enough for DiMasi that an inherently compassioinate person like Gov Patrick has not ignored it… Or, maybe somebody else is pulling other strings in the other direction? Maybe there is some sinister force in the legislature that doesn’t want to be reminded of DiMasi and is working to make certain he dies in prison outside of Massachusetts?
or did the state (AG Martha Coakley?) decide to pass on the case for political reasons, and were only too happy to have the feds step in? I don’t know the legalities behind the case to draw my own conclusion.
so I think you can safely spare us the Abraham Lincoln quotes.
This situation doesn’t call for any of that.
What we need here is to have a little empathy for his family, all of whom no doubt love him, and allow him to serve his sentence in a Massachusetts prison with access to proper medical care.
The same should be done *for anyone in his situation.*
Period.
…No.
“This situation” is bigger than Sal DiMasi and pretending that it is only about Sal DiMasi is giving a pass to those who are letting Sal DiMasi suffer far away because they don’t want to see him suffer up close. And if Sal DiMasi is suffering away from Massachusetts it is because Massachusetts made that decision. Asking the following:
Is a bit of a moral conundrum since the very reason Sal DiMasi is suffering is because our leaders quite pointedly did not do the right thing in the first instance.
Nowhere did I say anything different from this. In this we are agreed. I’m all for alleviating the suffering of anyone suffering, including Sal DiMasi. But my point about the Lincoln quote is that blood must often be paid for blood and crimes that persist, is asking for a persistence in suffering… and so when we alleviate DiMasis’ pain without paying for the underlying crime, committed by others and still in power today…. they know who they are… some other innocent (or partially innocent as in the case of DiMasi) will end up suffering.
So I say, let Massachusetts leaders here and now, do the right thing and indict and bring to trial every last crook and scumbag in the Massachusetts legislature and every last human now living who no longer serves in the lege, but was complicit in all the crimes, past and present.
Don’t leave it to the Feds.
Don’t put anybody, least of all Sal DiMasi, in that position ever again.
Don’t let the problem continue to fester for another decade while tammany-on-the-Charles continues to gorge itself.
I’ve always been uncomfortable with throwing people in jail for things like political corruption. However, most disturbing is the withholding of treatment to squeeze him. Is that even legal? Seems like the definition of a human rights violation and a strong eighth amendment case.
Political corruption is stealing from everyone at once. It is among the worst of thefts, worse than robbing a bank.
What Sal did was wrong, and he deserved to be punished for it. Unlike Christopher, I don’t think prison time is out of bounds for these kinds of crimes. But “worse than robbing a bank”? Bank robbery is almost by definition an intensely violent crime that puts life and limb of innocent people at risk.
See here. Most robberies aren’t terribly dramatic.
But I’ll admit it was an imperfect example. My point is, political corruption is systematic theft, affecting much broader swaths of people.
Re: Sal, I have mixed feelings. We don’t bring every federal cancer patient here, I’m not sure Sal earned special privilege. Then again, he was our friend and neighbor … I’d certainly be OK with them bringing him home.
saying “most [bank] robberies aren’t terribly dramatic.”
It’s almost certainly coming from the privilege of never being in a situation where a gun was pointed at your head, or in a situation where someone passed over a demand letter or made a serious threat on your life.
I can’t say that I have, either, but I do know exactly what it feels like to have a relative put in a similar situation — and the result that can follow, as that relative was murdered.
There doesn’t have to be a hostage situation or people murdered or killed for these situations to be ‘dramatic.’ Just being threatened with a gun is enough — and situations where that occurs can easily snowball.
Any criminal who would threaten others with a gun or dangerous weapon should go away for a very, very, very long time, because they’re clearly a physical danger to society. Longer even than a politician who took bribes.
I prefer to save prison for people whose physical liberty makes me nervous walking the streets. Your murderers, rapists, and yes, bank robbers. Those are violent crimes and only with the perpetrator detained can the rest of us be safe from him. I don’t remember the specifics of the DiMasi case, but directing money a certain way doesn’t necessarily equate to theft in my book.
it may well have been theft. But it wasn’t robbery. There is a big difference.
A politician who shakes down companies for bribes in exchange for government contracts…no jail time. But a 18 yr old who physically threatens me and steal $20 bucks should go to jail? Sounds like a very unequal justice system to me.
When Jack O’Brien hired probation officers because of political connections, he set into motion a probation department that was unqualified to supervise criminals…some violent criminals who would threaten your physical liberty…so Jack O’Brien should therefore go to jail (if proven guilty, which I doubt he will)
Maybe I’m miss understanding you, but you don’t think public officials getting payoffs in return for taxpayer funded contracts should result in potential jail time? How do you feel about jail time for insider trading? Or embezzling? Narrowing your criteria for jail time to criminals that are physically threatening is pretty narrow. By that standard, Bernie Madoff would be walking the streets today.
One tier for violence and another tier for not. I’m more threatened by an 18-year-old who mugs me for $20 than I am an unethical politician. Jack O’Brien’s hirings are too indirect, and I don’t think who gets hired and why should be a criminal matter, just an oversight one. Unless you are accusing O’Brien of directly conspiring to release violent criminals no case there. Financial crimes should get financial penalities and forfeiture of their positions. Maybe an extreme case like Madoff warrants some time, but he stole millions of the life savings of innocents. DiMasi is nowhere near his league.
What if the bribes result in insufficiently inspected structures? In an undermanned fire department? In an insufficiently trained prison guard?
Every time the government makes a poor decision as the result of corruption or bribery, that government is providing substandard service and/or have fewer resources to perform governmental duties — including those which can result in actual physical harm to individuals.
Just because it isn’t scary, just because it doesn’t involve a weapon in an action film, just because it isn’t obvious it’s somehow less dangerous to life and limb? Nah. Not buying what you’re selling.
…if it’s a matter of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance on the job one gets fired as they should be. There should be checks and balances in place within the system so that the hirings you mention don’t happen in the first place.
decreased confidence in government, which leads to Republicans winning things and enacting Reaganomics. No thanks.
Plus, this worthless “violent” vs. “non-violent” distinction is what leaves a down-on-his-luck 20-year-old in prison for 30 years over a matter of $20 or $100 and people like Jamie Dimon still running a major bank despite causing a trillion to be swiped from the American people.
30 years is a lot for less than $100 and Jamie Dimon has no business still being a CEO.
an appropriate punishment for political corruption such as DiMasi was convicted of? Locking him up was the right thing. What isn’t right is the treatment he has received leading to his current health condition, and the treatment he has received, considering that condition in an effort to extract cooperation from him in other cases.
…should result in forfeiture of public office and a prohibition on ever again seeking public office, with heavy fines attached, say double the amount he took in bribes, and maybe forfeiture of pension accrued from serving in public office.
under these circumstances is set forth in the state retirement statute, as I recall.
Our federal and state penitentiaries are filled with inmates who are suffering as much or more as Mr. DiMasi, and who have arguably harmed society less (mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses come to mind).
Mr. DiMasi was an attorney, a member of the Bar, and a powerful elected official when he committed the crimes in question. He surely understood that he was committing crimes.
I wonder how many other inmates are in the same prison hospitals as Mr. DiMasi, what their condition is, and why they are imprisoned. In my view, Mr. Dimasi has had enough special treatment (in comprison to those others) already.
that federal and state penitentiaries are “filled with inmates who are suffering as much or worse?”
Are they really filled with people who have cancer or similar life-threatening diseases and are purposely not given treatment in order for prosecutors to try to gain more information out of them?
Are they really “filled” with people who are suffering “as much or more” than that? Including the physical pain and anguish of going through cancer, but also the mental pain where family is purposefully denied access by needless geographical separations and the knowledge that you’re probably going to die from something that should have been treatable?
We have people who will be able to live longer on death row in this country for heinously murdering people than Sal DiMasi may for taking bribes from a software company that made little impact on the day-to-day operations of the state, all because DiMasi wasn’t given access to proper medical treatment.
I really think you may want to consider walking that one back. You may or may not have sympathy for Sal DiMasi as a person, but certainly you are wrong that the prison system is “filled” with people treated worse.
It’s filled with lots of people treated poorly, but not worse: no one is given a death sentence for taking bribes — and Sal DiMasi shouldn’t be treated worse than murderers.
Reports like this NPR piece from last spring have caught my attention before. The problem of terminally-ill prisoners is significant enough that it has received Federal attention — and very little has been done.
I disagree with you about the severity of Mr. DiMasi’s crimes, and I am unconvinced about the allegations you make about the federal prosecutors. My recollection is that Mr. DiMasi was involved in great deal more corruption than just this one, and the damage done by corruption like this is, in my view, grave.
How much of the completely failed performance of the Health Connector and Unemployment System rollouts is due to similarly corrupt contractors? How much of the political movement to slash funding for such ventures is a result of reaction to Mr. DiMasi’s corruption?
Sal DiMasi was the third Speaker of the Massachusetts House in a row to face charges like these.
I’m sorry, I’m just not buying it. A federal program exists and (according to the link above) is underused for addressing cases like this. Not surprisingly (given the way government works these days), few of these exceptions are granted.
As far as I’m concerned, Mr. DiMasi can get in line and wait his turn.
…to conspiracy theory territory. Do you see corruption behind everything? I prefer evidence to suggestive speculation. Plus what did DiMasi do to you? Your vendetta against him almost seems personal.
First you speak of “conspiracy theory territory”, then allege a personal “vendetta”.
At the time of his indictment, Mr. DiMasi was also implicated in another issue related to ticket scalping, profits from that scalping, and similar shenanigans. Mr. DiMasi’s staff and close associates were in the Globe repeatedly regarding lobbying activities — they were, of course, never “lobbying”. They were just happy to receive low-interest loans or sweetheart contracts or whatever. It was a long time ago, I can look up the cites if you care.
A few observations:
1. It *was* pervasive
2. It was NOT personal (I actually know very little about Mr. DiMasi except his involvement in such scandals).
3. It was not limited to Mr. Dimasi.
“Vitale, DiMasi were very involved in Massachusetts ticket scalping law” (Jun 19, 2009).
“Controversy surrounds the Mass. ticket resale bill” (May 2, 2008)
“Richard Vitale, friend of former Massachusetts Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, admits breaking state lobbying law” (October 8, 2011)
“Hard questions loom for patronage ‘king’” (October 24, 2010). Mr. Petrolati was a close associate of Mr. DiMasi.
These are real issues that cause real harm. “Conspiracy-theory territory” seems appropriate when there is the clear appearance of conspiracy. Mr. DiMasi, Mr. Vitale, Mr. Petrolati — Cognos, ticket scalping, the patronage mill — I get that you seem inclined to dismiss such activities harmless politicing.
I disagree.
…was regarding your question about the health care site. You seem to assume because something went wrong there must be corruption behind it rather than incompetence or just plain error. Your right, I’m still not convinced about jail.
An important reason why government corruption is illegal is that it too often results in incompetent contractors being retained, displacing contractors who can do the job (and are often more expensive because of that). That’s one potential source of these IT problems we see.
A second source is that the relentless repetition of wave after wave of scandals like this is a significant driver of the demand to “starve the beast” and slash government spending. The result of that is that budgets are too low to attract competent managers needed by the state, and too low to afford competent contractors needed to perform the work.
Neither is a “conspiracy”, each is simple reality.
I think you are horribly, dreadfully incorrect in your two-tier view.
Your approach would exclude Richard Nixon and all the Watergate conspirators.
I think your proposal is not only incorrect, but racist and classist. If adopted, I suggest that it would destroy public confidence in government — and rightly so.
Ford was right to pardon him, though for those more directly involved in the act itself, it WAS a burglarly which I think of as a jailable offense. I never suggested treating different races and classes differently for the same crime.
The crimes you choose to punish by incarceration are crimes whose perpetrators are disproportionally black, Hispanic, and poor. The perpetrators of the crimes you choose to avoid incarceration for are disproportionally white, male, and wealthy. The effect of your policy is to threaten poor minorities with jail, and to excuse wealth whites.
The effect of your approach would be to make prison population even more black, Hispanic, and poor than it already is.
Getting caught with cocaine is treated far less harshly then getting caught with much smaller amounts of crack. The former is bought and sold primarily by well-to-do usually suburban whites, the latter by poor blacks. The mandatory minimums for selling crack are FAR worse than those for selling cocaine, yet both are variants of THE SAME substance.
A “school zone” violation happens far more often in the inner city than in suburbs, because of simple geography — it is hard to find areas of the inner city that are NOT part of such a zone. That school zone violation results in far harsher sentences for inner-city criminals than for their suburban counterparts — even when they commit the SAME crime.
In both cases, the effect of our laws is to punish poor minorities MUCH more harshly than well-to-do whites, and the demographics of our prison populations reflect that imbalance.
Most of the criminals who went to jail (and/or should have gone to jail) for Watergate were prosecuted for crimes other than the burglary itself — Obstruction of Justice, blackmail, suborning perjury, perjury, and so on. All non-violent, all not jailable by your proposal.
In all, 69 government officials were charged and 48 were found guilty in connection with Watergate and the subsequent coverup. The “burglary” charges were a small part of the much larger conspiracy. The Watergate burglary originated in the inner circle of Richard Nixon, and its coverup was executed by the same people (including Mr. Nixon himself). Here (from Wikipedia) are the principals involved in the Watergate scandal who were convicted of crimes that were NOT burglary:
This list includes two Attorney Generals, every senior member of Mr. Nixon’s re-election committee, and virtual EVERY senior member of Mr. Nixon’s White House staff (all attorneys). All of them white males, by the way. Your policy would threaten NONE of them with jail.
Let’s not forget Spiro Agnew, who plead “Nolo Contendere”. Again according to Wikipedia:
Spiro Agnew would not have threatened with jail under your proposal — and without that threat, arguably would not have been nearly so “cooperative” with prosecutors.
I fear you gravely underestimate how serious the Watergate scandal was, or just how thoroughly corrupt the Nixon administration was.
I learned a long time ago to take charges of racism from you with a huge grain of salt. I don’t really care what proportion of which races commit which crimes, and I don’t know enough to comment on the crack vs. powder distinction. I think perjury and obstruction might be jailable offenses if the underlying crime is itself jailable. In other words if its perjury or obstruction is regarding a burglarly, which I would jail for, it would also stand to reason that serving some time is appropriate for perjurers and obstructors regarding that case is warranted as well. I don’t want to relitigate Watergate but from a greater good standpoint I am satisfied that Nixon, Agnew, and their respective staffs and appointees were run out of office.
I too have learned a lot about your attitudes towards racism over these few years at BMG.
I don’t expect to change your opinion. In my view, exchanges like this demonstrate what I see as glaring holes in your arguments — both about de facto racism and about the “two-tier” system you propose.
At least you are self-consistent. Your “two tier” proposal amounts to one justice system for the rich and white and a different one for those who are poor and not white. It appears to me that the way you avoid the inescapable conclusion that this two-tier proposal is racist and classist is by denying the existence of de facto racism and classism.
I’m sure that you harbor no ill-will towards minorities or the poor. You join the majority of the southerners that I’ve known in this. I’m equally sure that the ideas you promote serve to keep racism and classism very much alive in today’s 21st century America.
I suppose the best we can do is agree to disagree.
…that I have one tier for the rich and white and one for the poor and black. I do have one tier for murderers, rapists, muggers, and bank robbers and another tier for the less violent. (Aren’t we always saying how sentences shouldn’t be quite so harsh for non-violent drug offenders, for example?) I can’t help that there’s a correlation, but to the extent that there is maybe that’s what we really need to work on. Meanwhile, I’ll treat a black CEO the same as a white one who steals, a black politician the same as a white one who is corrupt (I don’t believe Chuck Turner or Dianne Wilkerson belong in jail either, for example, but also not in public office), and a white mugger the same as a black mugger.
Educated or well off people tend to steal in clever ways that don’t involve violence of direct threats to you physical liberty. The less educated and less well off tend to steal in ways that do directly threat your physical liberty. Well off drug addicts sell from their well off family members, poor drug addicts hold up gas stations.
I very this as an obvious truth that I can’t understand you don’t see the implications of your approach. What am I missing? If two people bigger than you demanded all your money and you gave them the $100 you had on you and then someone hacks a retailer and got your debit card account, emptying your checking account of $2,500…you would want jail for the $20 robbery, but only have the hackers pay a large fine? That is a fair justice system in your mind?
…is a crime against my property and not the same as political corruption. I would want that person’s liberty constrained as the only way we can be sure he won’t just try to find better ways to not get caught, and of course I want my money back. However, it’s still the case that someone who robs me at gun point I would feel less safe living in my neighborhood.
There is mounting evidence that the November 21, 2013 collapse of a shopping mall in Riga, Latvia was caused by inadequate design brought about in no small measure by rampant corruption in government inspection offices. It is no surprise that the Latvian government fell as a result of the disaster.
The problem of corruption in local and state building departments of Massachusetts is real and current.
Your premise that only violent crimes that scare you merit jail is, in my view, contemptuous of the vital role that government plays in protecting the life and limb of the public.
..and yes, maybe the government should have fallen. I don’t know how the Latvian legal system works, but it seems those responsible would be prime targets for wrongful death suits if it happened here. Civil remedies may be the way to go, but there’s nothing that says civil remedies cannot be very severe in penalizing the perpetrators.
What special treatment is that?
I’ve been hearing about how unfair his prosecution was since around the time of his indictment.
America imprisons a *huge* portion of its minority population, and the disparities in sentencing between minorities and whites are well-documented. Sheer probability alone compels the observation that there are a great many prisoners whose situation is more “unfair” or “inappropriate” than Mr. DiMasi. I’m sure that some portion of those unfairly imprisoned or unfairly treated or unfairly sentenced offenders are also, like Mr. DiMasi, terminally ill.
Clarence Allen Rice died in federal prison, after being imprisoned for fraud. The investigation linked to above cites 618 requests for Compassionate Release in 2010 and 2011. Only 64 — about ten percent — were even processed.
Unlike Mr. DiMasi, we don’t hear about those — they lack the visibility provided by public office and supportive communities like BMG.
That lack of visibility does not, in my opinion, make them less deserving. Sympathetic posts like this one — front-paged, at that — are what I mean by “special treatment”.
When was the last time a request for the “Compassionate Release” of a terminally-ill inner-city black crack dealer front-paged here?
…to fulfill some warped sense of “balance”? Write another thread about the mentally ill in prison if you wish. You would probably get sympathy and agreement. However, those cases are completely irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of THIS case.
I didn’t say anything about “sticking it” to anybody.
The claim here is that Mr. Dimasi somehow deserves to be treated specially. My response is that he should take his place in line.
I hope you’re able to appreciate the distinction.
This is NOT about giving “special” treatment to any prisoner. This is about giving fair and humane treatment to ANY prisoner. The “special” treatment DiMasi has gotten so far is to be carted around for 4 months of “squeeze and intimidation” by the US Attorney and federal prison system while they chose to withhold/ignore the cancer diagnosis of their own physicians. That’s pretty special. And when they finally got around to treating the cancer, he got off the chart radiation that burned and weakened him. Very special. And when his weight dropped like a stone and the cancer was spreading, he got a tube put in to take liquid nourishment and then was told that that nourishment would be rationed. How special is that?
No prisoner should get such special treatment.
You describe terrible things done to Mr. DiMasi, then say “that’s pretty special”. My read of the evidence is that this is NOT special.
I agree that “no prisoner should get such special treatment”.
I wish we showed as much concern for the dozens, if not hundreds, of other prisoners being similarly abused.
I agree that Mr. DiMasi has been treated badly.
Whether there should be a line or not, there IS a line. Legislation was passed years ago to address circumstances like Mr. DiMasi’s. The evidence is that such abuse continues in spite of this legislation. Mr. DiMasi is one of dozens, hundreds, or more who suffers from terminal illness and is ignored.
I suggest that the family and friends of those prisoners who filed for “Compassionate Release” years ago (and whose loved ones are still alive) feel rightly entitled to have their situations addressed before special consideration is given Mr. DiMasi.
In my view, a more productive way to focus our concern about Mr. DiMasi is to demand that such abuses stop for every prisoner, and to demand that government officials who perpetrate such abuses be investigated, prosecuted, and punished if guilty.
A “special” pardon for Mr. DiMasi (such as the suggestion, downthread, that Governor Patrick use his connections to the White House to request a pardon) hurts, not helps, this more important effort.
I’m with you Tom…no prisoner should be dealt cruel and unusual punishment…so a request for compassionate release after ANY prisoner has been seriously ill-treated by the system should be routine, not special.
I find it very interesting that US Atty Ortiz was willing to cut deals with serial murderers to get them to testify (truthfully or not) against Whitey Bulger…these thrugs got off with 7 months per murder!…others are still walking the streets…I just don’t think Sal DiMasi is any threat to society.
Thomas M. Petrolati is deeply implicated in the Probation Department scandal. Mr. Petrolati was Chief of Staff (I believe) to Mr. DiMasi. The many ties between Mr. Petrolati, Mr. Vitale, and Mr. DiMasi suggest to me a broad, rather than narrow, organization of corrupt government figures.
The Probation Department has an enormous impact on public safety. Parole officers are frequently tempted by bribes, gifts, kickbacks, and other special favors — the people they manage in some cases do represent a very real threat to the public.
I don’t know whether or not Mr. DiMasi is a threat to society. I do know that he was corrupt, and I do know that his close associates are deeply involved in a wide range of corrupt activities that, in the case of the Probation Department, are very much a threat to public safety.
No prisoner should be abused, we agree on that. Every official who knowingly worsens an inmate’s medical condition or illness should be prosecuted — we agree on that.
I would even agree with a decision to release Mr. DiMasi — if most other terminally-ill inmates were shown similar mercy.
Was and is the state representative from Ludlow, MA and he is a great example of why politicians have such low credibility….skills are based on being connected to everything and everyone – a politician who operates on who’s – who and who gave what to whom – reward system.
Petro – as he is affectionately known for his greasy hair-style was gently replaced as Speaker pro tempore during the Probation Scandal.
Let’s lift the hood on the hiring of corrections officers in the Sheriff’s departments and smell the dankest of patronage piles. Plenty of Petro recommendations there.
Read it and weep.
…like frontpage diaries on Bluemassgroup or editorials from columnists and newspapers. My general feelings is that the federal prison system (and I suspect all state prison systems) treat prisoners as sub-humans. The out-cry should be aimed at the over-all treatment (or lack of) of prisoners by the fed system. I do believe that Sal has been treated horribly. But singling out his situation, is be definition, special treatment. Would we be having this discussion if it were Sal Demaso, convicted of stock fraud, who was dying in federal prison?
I was going to make an unkind comment about opinionated observers making assumptions about elected and appointed officials. Been watching House of Cards I think.
… I hereby withdraw any and all ‘assumptions’ about any and all elected and appointed officials and, straightforwardly demand and require a complete and comprehensive third party investigation of any and all crimes committed.
Surely, “house of cards” notwithstanding, after three straight house speakers resigning under a cloud, the neccessity of federal involvement because of the failure of local enforcement (as discussed), repeated questions about the present speaker and a thoroughly neutered and ineffectual ‘ethics reform’, the citizens of the CommonWealth, you and I included, require nothing less than crystalline and absolute clarity about the issue… The appearance of impropriety is, indeed, not necessarily impropriety. But citizens, and honest legislators, deserve more than hand waving and vague pronouncements of innocence. The situation has gone well past that and requires either indictment or comprehensive exoneration.
I am, here and now, completely willing to be proven completely and utterly wrong about the present, and past, state of criminal and immoral behaviour in the state house and beyond. Any fair and legitimate investigation that exonerates any of the current and past members of the legislature will have my blessing. But the present state of half-shadow and assumptions cannot be resolved in ostrich fashion…
Its a nice day maybe you should get out and get some fresh air.
.. perhaps you should read what I’ve written, upthread. The gist is just this: Sal DiMasi wouldn’t be in this position if Massachusetts, initially, “did the right thing.” Asking a feckless thug to stop beating on a victim after you’ve decided he’s been beaten enough isn’t mercy. It may only be moral cowardice.
A “simple call for mercy” ought to, should it not, include an understanding of why such mercy is needed…? Asking the very same thug who caused the need to supply the need is morally fractured and ethically blinkered: Simply asking “leaders” to do the right thing” now when it is THEY who created this entire situation, presents us with a moral gordian knot… Do we overlook past failings in order to herald present efforts? Do we somehow feel good about them, and ourselves, because they’ll do the right thing more or less arbitrarily? What complicity do we, as citizens, share in their crimes if we draw this line?
I’m all for mercy for this one man. But let us be clear this mercy doesn’t occur in a vacuum and without real change and repentance any actions on the part of the “leaders” being asked to act here will be hollow mercy and will leave others, after Sal DiMasi is gone, in the same position: when the feckless thug gets to do the beating and also appear magnanimous… well then we’re all in it deep.
but I couldn’t POSSIBLY comment.
You not commenting that is. Sorry..that was mean…most of the time you are thoughtful and kind.
It was a quote from the original UK “House of Cards”, featuring a masterful performance by the late Ian Richardson.
regarding the absence of MA Constitutional Officers (who would be Governor), legislative leaders and others who may have been privy and possibly complicit with the corruption. A strong line of questioning for the current candidates for elected office as to their experience, skills, promise or pledge to weed out political corruption in this rather unsaintly political culture needs to be pressed.
The situation of Mr. DiMasi’s incarceration and the refusal to provide timely and adequate medical treatment is separate. That is awful. I hope there is someone on Beacon Hill (Martha???? Steve-o???? Deval?????? Therese……Bobby…..anybody?) with the decency to speak to this now.
Do it.
Today on WCVB OTR program, Gov. Patrick was asked directly about the DiMasi situation. Incredibly, he furrowed his eyebrows and got that odd look he gets when he is pretending…and he actually claimed not to be up on the details of what is going on with DiMasi!!!! So Janet Wu went along for the ride an explained it to him…after which Gov.Patrick said he did not think it was something he could do anything about because it’s federal and he should not get involved in that… political courage or laugh riot?….like he has never made a call to the POTUS to affect action on something that was federal!!!…shame on this teflon “leader”…one of the Governor’s cousins was among the drug dealers who were given presidential pardons last year because his sentence was too long…and the President’s Aunt and Uncle who both broke the law here in Massachusetts were given stay out of jail and don’t be deported tickets…it’s hard not to become cynical.
I don’t think there’s been a more self-absorbed politician than Deval Patrick. He thinks about himself. Not about the future of the party. Not about the best interests of the Commonwealth (see DCF, EBT, Drug lab – “willful blindness, it’s called”). He’s not remotely concerned about any of the people who helped him get where he is – the grassroots. He has little time for “mercy.” Nope. He care about Deval. And the aforementioned cousin.
“DiMasi’s cancer was diagnosed in prison but treatment was deliberately withheld for months while the US Atty tried to “squeeze” him.”
Who is this US attorney? I trust s/he will be charged with homicide when DiMasi dies of cancer?
Featured on the front page of today’s Globe — he was killed by prison guards at Bridgewater. Their abuse that killed him is ON VIDEOTAPE.
Five years later … no punishment, no prosecution.
I know, Bridgewater is state and not federal. My point, though, is that America does horrible, inhumane things to our prisoners. It didn’t start with AG and GITMO, and it won’t end there.
I agree that crimes should be brought against government officials who participate in such cases.
He is saw to it that sal was denied medical treatment because he wanted him to testify before a grand jury investigating the the probation matter. Sal was put on a bus more than once that meandered around the country before arriving in Worcester or a final penal destination.
Wyshak was on a fishing expedition and a weaker man would made something up to satisfy Wyshak.
Happens all the time.
The two tiered system of justice make sense to me. I would prose that white collar criminal,” including political ones bed sentenced to house confinement and made to work and that the largest percentage of their earnings be given to those they harmed or into some kind of special fund for victims of non-violent crimes. Prison should be for those who pose a threat to safety. To me drug offenders, if they have not committed a violent offense, should not be in prison. We need not look further then the sentence for Dookhan, who tipped our entire criminal justice system on its ear to know something is very wrong with our current sentencing system. Within our current system, her sentence was way too light.
I agree that non-violent drug offenders should not be in prison.
I’m appalled that we even consider differentiating “white collar” from other crimes when it comes to sentencing. Prosperity should not, in my view, come with an essentially unlimited “Get Out Of Jail” card.
This does not have to be a dichotomy. We can and should be far more aggressive about forcing financial restitution from those who steal large amounts of money — with a particular focus on public officials who steal public money. The financial penalty given Mr. McLaughlin is laughably small in comparison to the very real harm he did to large numbers of our poorest residents — and the enormous amount of money he embezzled from them.
I think Mr. McLaughlin should be forced to live in approximately the same economic circumstances as those he plundered until he makes full restitution.
Like most forms of punishment, the threat of jail time is a necessary tool in both discouraging the crime and in encouraging cooperation during the prosecution of a crime. Yes, violent offenders should be incarcerated. No (in my view), “non-violent” offenders should NOT be excused from incarceration.
In my view, an appropriate standard is “is this person a danger to society”. Predators who plunder the life savings of those around them — especially in a society that is dismantling the vestiges of a safety net for all but the very wealthy — are, in my view, threatening enough to public safety and well-being that they, like violent criminals, should face the threat of prison.
In my view, the real scandal in the Annie Dookhan situation is the utter absence of investigation into the hierarchy that encouraged her crimes for so long.
Nobody seems to be asking questions like:
1. Who knew about her unusual “productivity”?
2. What did they know?
3. When did they know it?