When Governor Patrick signed a three-strikes bill without a judicial safety net, the measure became among the worst in the country. Even California’s three-strikes bill authorized judicial discretion; the judge could decide whether the prior crime should qualify as a “strike,” triggering the onerous sentence. And even with this safety valve, the bill was responsible for the worst prison overcrowding in California history.
True, the legislative conference committee members have labored to restrict the categories of crimes that would qualify for maximum sentences without parole — for which they deserve enormous credit. The ones remaining sound serious — unless one understands how these crimes are charged. A defendant can be convicted of armed robbery, for example, if he says he has a weapon, even if no weapon was shown or found, or even if he has a fake gun. Manslaughter can be excessive force in self defense. Assault and battery causing “serious” bodily injury may mean one thing to one prosecutor, another thing to a different one.
Comments
Yah well, you judges have no one else to blame for this but yourselves, if the public has some sort of confidence in you and your decisions they would not have to have gone to this. For instance, when a drunk driver kills someone and then we find out that he/she has 27 prior convictions (exaggeration on purpose), it's time to take it out of your hands. Do your job and this will not happen again.
With all due respect Judge Gertner, I think that "poor Joe" who pulled out a pistol and robbed three pharmacies "while he was high" does not deserve to live in civil society. Perhaps if he were your next door neighbor out in Wellesley, you might agree.
Addiction is an illness. If the addict gets clean, which is unlikely to happen in prison, he's probably not going to rob pharmacies, or anywhere, again.
"Poor Joe" is probably an addict. If Joe gets clean, which isn't likely to happen in prison, he probably won't be robbing pharmacies, or anywhere else, again.
This solution doesn't fit the problem. It puts too many people in prison. And honestly, it's better that we err with too few than too many people in prison.
This is a sad day for Massachusetts. Let's just take all the crimes that happen because of drug addiction. If an addict gets clean, which isn't likely in prison, he'll probably stop stealing to feed his addiction. Moreover, this law creates a black and white switch in what is definitely an area with far more than 50 shades of gray.
The great thing about this opinion piece is that I know if Judge Gertner is against this bill, it must be great. She's a smart and dedicated lawyer and former judge, but way off the mark on criminal justice policy. Keep throwing strikes, keep locking them up and soon we'll have a better society.
Now Joe won't need rehab.
Nancy Gertner...Thanks for showing those radical bomber /cop killer defense attorney roots....Overcrowding in prison?...Here's an out of the box thought. Lets use prisoner labor to build more prisons! Fresh air, hard work, learn a skill, sleep well. Now there's win-win reform....Use a gun, fake a gun, say gun. Its all good...Lets look at exhibit A from today's headlines. Long term sexual predator rabbi. Ten years probation. Why don't you write your next self promoting Op-Ed on that " judicial discretion justice"
Les Gosule said today, "To violent criminals and their apologists who complain that Melissa's Law is too harsh, I say: 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime'. If you don't want to go to prison under this law, take responsibility for your actions and refrain from committing multiple acts of violence." The basic difference between criminal apologists and the rest of us that you make *excuses* for crime; we demand personal *responsibility*
Congratulations on an excellent column. I saw David Linsky today ask for help in his re-election campaign. He won't get any from me. I wonder if his Republican opponent could possibly be worse.
Is that supposed to be Winston Churchill in your photo. You certainly radically disagree with him on the subject of crime and punishment. Winston Churchill wrote" "The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. "A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man - these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it."
It seems to me that anyone could make a serious mistake in committing a felony. Things happen, people are in the wrong place, at wrong time, are desperate, etc. That is one thing. However it is unclear to me why society should tolerate 2 more felonies and somehow say "sure, come back to society". Too many innocents are impacted, perhaps fatally, to say 3 strikes, and it is still your turn to bat. You are out.
Nancy, the judges are the problem. They live in their lilly white, protected communities and are rarely affected by felons. Guess what? The average American has no problem with Tommy or Joe having to serve their full term in the can. So the felon didn't have a weapon? He just threatened that he had one? Again, the average American says throw the book at him. If you judges did your job and sent criminals away, we wouldn't have to have this law.
Rich, I disagree. The "average person" does NOT want to spend $40,000+ every single year for the next 30 or 40 years to lock up an addict who needs rehab or especially a veteran with PTSD who needs mental health treatment, not prison. Seriously, $1.6 MILLION (40 years X $40K) would pay for treatment with $1.5 mil left over, and then these guys could potentially be productive taxpayers instead of throwaways.