I remember the case sited here of the guy with three life terms, out on parole and killing a cop. And many other instances of repeat offenders with many brutal crimes, killing someone, raping/killing a kid, killing cops and a police chief a few years back.
I'm divided on if there should be at least some judicial discretion, but given how these repeat offenders keep doing crime, I can see the rationale of no discretion. But I do feel there can still be circumstances, on occasion, that a judge may feel a need to decide on some discretion.
At least a step in the right direction. They can ammend the law later if really needed.
Quotehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-usa-massachusetts-crime-bill-idUSBRE8711TT20120802
Massachusetts governor signs "three strikes" bill
(Reuters) - A tough new Massachusetts crime bill that imposes a "three strikes" rule on violent repeat offenders was signed into law on Thursday.
Democratic Governor Deval Patrick signed the legislation, known as Melissa's Bill, in a private ceremony, a spokeswoman said.
The law was named for Melissa Gosule, a young Massachusetts teacher who was kidnapped, raped and murdered in 1999 by a repeat violent criminal offender out on parole.
Momentum for passing the bill increased after John Maguire, a veteran police officer in Woburn was killed by a repeat offender in 2010 who was on parole after being sentenced to three life terms.
The law makes criminals who have been convicted three times of specific violent crimes ineligible for parole, forcing them to serve a full sentence, and enforces completion of previous sentences consecutive to completion of the latest sentence.
Massachusetts joins 26 other states that have some form of habitual-offender laws.
The law also reforms sentencing for non-violent drug offenders, which Patrick said would allow nearly 600 prisoners to be paroled and save the state millions of dollars.
The crime bill has drawn criticism because the three-strikes requirement does not include judicial discretion.
The legislature this week rejected a so-called safety valve amendment that would have provided more leeway for judges in sentencing habitual offenders.
"I still believe there is a necessary role for judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing, and many of the advocates of this bill have pledged to support that next year," Patrick said.
"I understand the concerns of those who worry we have taken judgment out of the justice system, and the pain and frustration of the families of victims of violent crime."
Gosule, then a 27-year-old substitute teacher, was murdered by Michael Gentile, a criminal previously released after serving only two years in jail for 27 prior felonies.
Les Gosule, Melissa's father, had pushed for 13 years for passage of the law.
"Winston Churchill said that government's first duty is to protect the physical safety of its citizens. Melissa's Law will begin to save lives, and save innocent people from injury, as soon as it's signed," Gosule said in a statement.
Given that the law specifies violent crimes, rather than all crimes, I approve.
I like the early release of nonviolent drug offenders it mentions as well.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 11, 2012, 08:26:33 PM
Given that the law specifies violent crimes, rather than all crimes, I approve.
Yeah, the problem with some "three strikes" laws have been that people have ended up being sentenced to life for what were seeminly relatively minor offenses. And apparantly this particular version doesn't necessarily impose a life sentence, just requires that the full sentence, whatever it may be, be served.
I don't see any of the justifications used to really make sense for this kind of law. Barring a judical error (which can be corrected on appeal), the evident examples quoted by people like Tim and others usually do carry a long sentence, so such laws are not necessary to address that. On the other hand, such laws essentially prevent justice being served by imposing a fixed penalty in a situation where it would be equitable to reduce the penalty.
And the fact that someone has committed prior offences does not mean that in this particular instance his penalty shouldn't be lower.
The fact that this is a violent crime or any other type of crime doesn't change the assessment. For example, you may have a guy guilty of two prior violent beatings. He gets out early for good behaviour, having served 5 years out of, say, 20, becomes a model citizen, starts a family, and his daughter is brutally raped by someone. He finds the guy and beats the living shit out of him - and goes to prison for 25+.
Death penalty for murder and rape.
And kidnapping.
Do this, and crime will go away.
I can understand giving people a second chance, but a third chance?
I was part of the opposition to this with the prisoners' organizations I worked for, but the revised bill is much more reasonable than the original proposals. Goddamn if Cinelli didn't fuck everything up for the rest of us.
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 02:20:45 AM
Death penalty for murder and rape.
And kidnapping.
Do this, and crime will go away.
I can see why people with mentality like this could come up with something as retarded as the Torah. Jahweh/Jehowah would have been proud.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 03:14:45 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 02:20:45 AM
Death penalty for murder and rape.
And kidnapping.
Do this, and crime will go away.
I can see why people with mentality like this could come up with something as retarded as the Torah. Jahweh/Jehowah would have been proud.
Why, you demand the death penalty for lesser crimes.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 01:52:48 AM
I don't see any of the justifications used to really make sense for this kind of law. Barring a judical error (which can be corrected on appeal), the evident examples quoted by people like Tim and others usually do carry a long sentence, so such laws are not necessary to address that. On the other hand, such laws essentially prevent justice being served by imposing a fixed penalty in a situation where it would be equitable to reduce the penalty.
And the fact that someone has committed prior offences does not mean that in this particular instance his penalty shouldn't be lower.
The fact that this is a violent crime or any other type of crime doesn't change the assessment. For example, you may have a guy guilty of two prior violent beatings. He gets out early for good behaviour, having served 5 years out of, say, 20, becomes a model citizen, starts a family, and his daughter is brutally raped by someone. He finds the guy and beats the living shit out of him - and goes to prison for 25+.
I will use New York as an example...
Monroe County, where I live and work, is a very liberal place when it comes to Judges, Sentencing, and the DA. I once supervised a parolee who killed a man, he saw this guy, with whom he had a history, talking on a pay phone, went home, got a gun, came back, and shot him to death, got on a bus and fled to NYC where he was caught six months later. He was sentenced to Criminal Possession of a Weapon 3rd (1st is the highest) and given seven years but only served four and was released on parole for five years. He committed a new crime and was convicted of Burglary 2nd (it was a home invasion robbery that was pled down) which became his 2nd violent felony offense. His parole was revoked because of the new conviction and his sentences run concurrent. He was only given three years for the Burglary and the rest of his Weapons charge was run alongside it, so he got out in two and two/thirds years.
So, this guy is now 25, has committed two serious crimes along with numerous other crimes, and has proven to be very violent. The DA and Judges in Monroe County continue to be lenient with him which is why the idea of a "three strikes" law exists.
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:12:00 AM
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
Yeah. I don't think removal of an ability to make a decision is a good solution to people who make bad decisions.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:12:00 AM
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
Yeah. I don't think removal of an ability to make a decision is a good solution to people who make bad decisions.
Depends on whether the criminals get back to the streets because of decisions by the judge or decisions by the parole board. If it is because of the board then finding new members would be just as effective.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2012, 06:39:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:12:00 AM
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
Yeah. I don't think removal of an ability to make a decision is a good solution to people who make bad decisions.
Depends on whether the criminals get back to the streets because of decisions by the judge or decisions by the parole board. If it is because of the board then finding new members would be just as effective.
I thought the three strikes laws are about reducing the discretion judges, not parole boards have.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 01:52:48 AM
The fact that this is a violent crime or any other type of crime doesn't change the assessment. For example, you may have a guy guilty of two prior violent beatings. He gets out early for good behaviour, having served 5 years out of, say, 20, becomes a model citizen, starts a family, and his daughter is brutally raped by someone. He finds the guy and beats the living shit out of him - and goes to prison for 25+.
Sounds like he failed to learn his lesson and deserves
life to serve out his full sentences.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 07:33:15 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2012, 06:39:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:12:00 AM
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
Yeah. I don't think removal of an ability to make a decision is a good solution to people who make bad decisions.
Depends on whether the criminals get back to the streets because of decisions by the judge or decisions by the parole board. If it is because of the board then finding new members would be just as effective.
I thought the three strikes laws are about reducing the discretion judges, not parole boards have.
It is. But the law sounds like it is about keeping them in prison too, not just sentencing them.
Yeah, this particular law seems configured a bit differently.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:12:00 AM
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
They do, duh.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 07:33:15 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2012, 06:39:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:12:00 AM
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
Yeah. I don't think removal of an ability to make a decision is a good solution to people who make bad decisions.
Depends on whether the criminals get back to the streets because of decisions by the judge or decisions by the parole board. If it is because of the board then finding new members would be just as effective.
I thought the three strikes laws are about reducing the discretion judges, not parole boards have.
It is, Raz didn't understand.
Quote from: Strix on August 12, 2012, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 07:33:15 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2012, 06:39:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:12:00 AM
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
Yeah. I don't think removal of an ability to make a decision is a good solution to people who make bad decisions.
Depends on whether the criminals get back to the streets because of decisions by the judge or decisions by the parole board. If it is because of the board then finding new members would be just as effective.
I thought the three strikes laws are about reducing the discretion judges, not parole boards have.
It is, Raz didn't understand.
QuoteThe law makes criminals who have been convicted three times of specific violent crimes ineligible for parole, forcing them to serve a full sentence, and enforces completion of previous sentences consecutive to completion of the latest sentence.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2012, 01:24:42 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 12, 2012, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 07:33:15 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2012, 06:39:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:12:00 AM
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
Yeah. I don't think removal of an ability to make a decision is a good solution to people who make bad decisions.
Depends on whether the criminals get back to the streets because of decisions by the judge or decisions by the parole board. If it is because of the board then finding new members would be just as effective.
I thought the three strikes laws are about reducing the discretion judges, not parole boards have.
It is, Raz didn't understand.
QuoteThe law makes criminals who have been convicted three times of specific violent crimes ineligible for parole, forcing them to serve a full sentence, and enforces completion of previous sentences consecutive to completion of the latest sentence.
Strix and Marty were/are missing that this bill is set up a bit differently than other three strikes bills.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 01:52:48 AM
I don't see any of the justifications used to really make sense for this kind of law. Barring a judical error (which can be corrected on appeal), the evident examples quoted by people like Tim and others usually do carry a long sentence, so such laws are not necessary to address that. On the other hand, such laws essentially prevent justice being served by imposing a fixed penalty in a situation where it would be equitable to reduce the penalty.
And the fact that someone has committed prior offences does not mean that in this particular instance his penalty shouldn't be lower.
The fact that this is a violent crime or any other type of crime doesn't change the assessment. For example, you may have a guy guilty of two prior violent beatings. He gets out early for good behaviour, having served 5 years out of, say, 20, becomes a model citizen, starts a family, and his daughter is brutally raped by someone. He finds the guy and beats the living shit out of him - and goes to prison for 25+.
As others also point out, many violent, repeat offenders are out and commit another felony - rape, murder, murder of cops, kidnap/kill kids. I see it too often and every time I just can't believe the person was out of prison at all, or that he/she didn't serve their full time.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2012, 06:39:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:12:00 AM
Eh, I rather let judges decide on these type things.
Yeah. I don't think removal of an ability to make a decision is a good solution to people who make bad decisions.
Depends on whether the criminals get back to the streets because of decisions by the judge or decisions by the parole board. If it is because of the board then finding new members would be just as effective.
Speaking of which, as you probably know Wags, Massachusetts has been investigating the parole board for various serious problems. One I believe is the case mentioned in this article where a guy with a lengthy record was let out and he killed a cop. Aside from such parole partronage issues, I believe the Feds are assisting in investigating various illegalities in the MA parole board/system.