Per the article: 'Prosecutors are likely to ­oppose any attempt to roll back sentencing rules for drug ­offenses. While Patrick argued the rules have crowded state prisons with drug addicts, ­Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said they have helped prosecutors target major drug dealers. "The connection between drug trafficking and violence is apparent to anyone who works in this field," Conley said.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The facts I have heard are that hardly any prosecutions go to trial -- the vast majority are plead out. The drug dealers have lots of money and plead out, pay huge fines, and get very little, if any, jail time. That is in spite of frequently being caught with large amounts of drugs. The drug users, on the other hand, don't have much money, don't get caught with much in terms of drugs, and go to jail for long periods because they don't have the possibility of paying huge fines to reduce or eliminate their sentences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If these are the facts, then, clearly, Mr. Conley's statement is misleading, and intentionally so.

The governor signed a bill providing some positive change and some negative change. He did not feel there was the political option of standing up and doing the right thing by vetoing the bill. Perhaps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Legislators are also voting for no extenuating circumstances. They should remember their stance when the indictments for the Probation Department scandal are handed down. I favor mandatory (long) sentences, a "1 strike rule" and no "walks". We can't afford to have corrupt legislators out on the streets. I know that they have packed the Probation Department with relatives and cronies in anticipation that, in case they get caught, the will have probation with easy supervision. I vote no probation.

This is a no brainer and shows Patrick as a sympathizer of criminals. Patrick was sympathizing with prisoners' lobby group rather than the victims and police. It is troubling that protecting the public is not even on his mind. Rather the welfare of repeat murderers are more important. judicial flexibility is bad since judges are mostly lenient even to repeat offenders.

BIG DEAL! Deval DOESN't sign the bill that EVERYBODY wants, the NO Drivers Licenses for Illegal Immigrants. Why didn't the Legislature OVERRIDE his veto?---------Globe forgets about this one. Or, more likely, Globe is HAPPY that illegal immigrants can get drivers licenses.

rsox2007, "Patrick was sympathizing with prisoners' lobby group rather than the victims and police." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laws are not about sympathy with a particular group. That is called "emotion". Your thinking is emotional. He should have decided based on fairness and reason. Fairness and reason is not the same as sympathy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Miker6, "No drivers Licenses for Illegal Immigrants". I tend to agree. This is Liberal emotion.

Governor, you caved to emotional pressure rather than rational thinking. I could not agree more with jkupkie when he says that we need a one-strike rule for political corruption. Ban them from state jobs and rescind their pensions. You will never get emotional pressure on that one, but corrupt politicians hurt the entire state for years.

Who does Patrick represent? Criminals, layabouts and illegals. The question is: who voted for him and why????

I'll tell you this No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn I'll tell you 'bout Texas Radio and the Big Beat Soft drivin', slow and mad, like some new language Now, listen to this, and I'll tell you 'bout the Texas I'll tell you 'bout the Texas Radio I'll tell you 'bout the hopeless night Wandering the Western dream Tell you 'bout the maiden with raw iron soul

I don't trust what the District Attorneys say about drug crime punishments. They were all (including Martha Coakley) so very wrong in what they said about the consequences of the Massachusetts referendum that decriminalized marijuana. They must have a skewed perspective to be so thoroughly wrong about liberalizing the drug laws.

O luxury! thou cursed by Heaven's decree, How ill exchanged are things like these for thee! How do thy potions, with insidious joy, Diffuse thy pleasures only to destroy! Kingdoms by thee, to sickly greatness grown, Boast of a florid vigour not their own; At every draught more large and large they grow, A bloated mass of rank unwieldly woe; Till, sapped their strength, and every part unsound, Down, down they sink, and spread the ruin round.

The legislation removes the possibility of parole for offenders who commit three serious, violent felonies, such as murder, rape, and home invasion. The offenders would have to serve at least three years in state prison for one of the felonies to count as a "strike" against them. At the same time, it makes some nonviolent drug offenders eligible for parole. Sounds like some upstanding people.

As others have stated: Let's have. One strike rule on corrupt representatives. One conviction and you lose 1) your retirement including health benefits for you and your family; 2) your right to ever serve in any form of public service; your collecting of any state monies or contracts if you go to the private enterprise; 3) no wife and or any other relative stand in for a business venture where you will attain a financial gain. People please feel free to add to this list.