The Globe reports this morning that nine of the state’s eleven District Attorneys have penned a six-page letter to the State Senate largely opposing the Senate’s criminal justice reform bill that will be debated on Thursday.
The most newsworthy aspect of the story may be the lack of unanimity among the DA’s: Middlesex DA Marian Ryan and Northwestern DA David E. Sullivan declined to sign the letter, indicating a split among the state’s prosecutors. And the letter itself acknowledges that the DA’s who signed it differ among themselves on various points. (Whether a letter reflecting these many gradations of opinion can be said to be the “blistering public rebuke” the Globe claims it to be is worthy of contemplation — but the Globe’s job, it seems, is to peddle controversy to attract eyeballs. )
Let’s look at some of the arguments the letter makes. One change in the Senate bill is to increase the threshold at which larceny crosses over from a misdemeanor to a felony. Right now that threshold is $250, meaning that a person convicted of stealing a $299 Apple Watch will carry a criminal record noting that felony conviction for ten years. The Senate bill would increase the threshold to $1500 — larceny below that amount would be a misdemeanor, which appears on a criminal record for five years.
The District Attorneys who signed the letter are amenable to increasing the threshold amount (again — “blistering public rebuke” — really, Globe?), but believe that the $1500 amount in the Senate bill is too high. They recommend, instead, an increase to $750 and suggest that any amount above this would make Massachusetts an “outlier.”
So let’s look at what the current felony thresholds are in the other New England states:
Connecticut: $2000
Rhode Island: $1500
Maine: $1000
New Hampshire: $1000
Vermont: $900
So the DA’s position is that for Massachusetts to increase its threshold from the current $250 to $750, which would still be lower than any of the other New England states, would make it an “outlier.” Cue The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
I have mixed feelings about the felony threshold. If you steal a bike courier’s bike (we still have bike couriers, right?), the dollar value is about $600 but you’ve also stolen his/her livelihood.
Yes, and everybody agrees that such a person should be punished and required to pay restitution. The question is whether that’s a crime comparable to other felonies (say indecent assault and battery on a child) that should stay on a person’s record for at least ten years. Even the DA’s think not.
Also (and apologies for trip deep into weeds), a person can seal a prior crime so that it does not appear on a criminal record only if the person has not committed another crime during the waiting period.
What are other distinctions, besides length of record?
Not sure what you mean.
I was wondering what the other differences are between felony and misdemeanor. If we’re getting into the realm of mandatory sentences, than I feel better about raising the limit to $1,500 or higher.
Proud to say my DA David Sullivan did not sign the letter.
Me, too — Marian Ryan.
One of my favorite books to reference is The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. Written by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson
In this book, the authors point to data findings that illustrate how criminal penalties for actions like theft are far more severe in communities with wide wealth disparity.
It stands to reason that in Massachusetts, as a state with one of the highest divides of wealth disparity would have harsher penalties for larceny at this level.
This is who we are.
. The DA’s, in their letter, spell out their reasons, regarding the felony threshold change, thusly:
None of this makes a damn bit of sense. First, reading through their attempt at ratiocination, one would easily be forgiven for thinking that $1,500 was the fine payed for felony conviction. Not only is it not, but why in the world would ANY DA for the CommonWealth think that it is?? Much less NINE of them… ?
I suppose, possibly, if you squint, look at it through a funhouse mirror (and that sideways) you might be able make the connection between the felony threshold and ‘households and small businesses that can least afford that sort of loss’ if you pull in further information like the possibility (I really don’t know) that victim restitution for felony crimes is different that victim restitution (if any) for misdemeanors…. meaning that a theft of $1499, regardless of whether they catch the thief or not, is gone forever for those from whom it was taken… That’s a case I can understand. I can only infer it, and that after a great deal of head-scratching, from what they’ve said here… and have no idea if I’m even in the same ballpark…
But, even so, so what? The nine DA’s aren’t arbiters of what ‘household and small businesses can afford.’ That’s not their job.