Share it on Facebook
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Rob, tell me why it is a good idea to let a harden criminal leave jail without any supervision or ability to throw them back in jail for the smallest reason?
A). Child diddler serves 6 years of a 10 year sentence...then is released "for good bhagior" out into the public to diddle children 24/7 but has to go to counseling and meet his PO once a week until they get bored with him.
B). Child diddler serves 10 years of a 10 year sentence.
I'd say keeping the diddler away from society for another 4 years is better than allowing him to diddle kids for 4 extra years. You say letting him out to diddle kids for 4 extra years is better.
Of course, I say kill the diddler and be done with him. "I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard
What is even better for society, in your scenario, is a parole system that works, so that we catch they screwing up while on parole the first time and throw them back in jail.
Your scenario B just lets that diddler go after 10 years, without any "stick" to throw them back in jail, until that commit another horrendous crime. That is unacceptable.
KILL THEM "I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard
Eventually many of these habitual criminals will serve their full jail sentence on their 3rd offense. Then what? Then what? They leave prison with absolutely NO post-prison supervision
And once again Simple is more concerned about the criminal than the victims - past, present and future. 'Gee, we need to assign a lifetime attendant for these 3 time losers because no matter how many times we incarcerate them they keep committing violent crimes.' Poor babies!!!
We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.
When they start associating with other convicts, if they were on parole, we can send them back to jail. But under the new law, we'll have to wait for them to commit crime, catch them and then throw them back in jail. But your immense intellect can't grasp that concept.
Governor Patrick only reversed course and signed that law because he was confident it was unconstitutional.
He didn't want the law. He didn't want the compromise. (Like you, he thinks kids are safer if third-time-convicted child molesters are on parole than if they are incarcerated. By the third conviction, they will have been on parole at least twice previously, and still offending. Betting the third time will work is, to use your term, "crazy").
There was a risk that the compromise would be constitutional (that it would allow judges a constitutionally sufficient degree of discretion). To avoid that risk, he signed the law, thereby avoiding the compromise - it will take years for the law to be struck down, so it will be a long while before the Legislature revisits the question. In the meantime, Governor Patrick has achieved an impressively cynical win.
Were it not for the oath the Governor took to support and defend our Constitution, it would have been a very good political move.
Or are you guessing?
Actually, that provision was in the original Senate bill, and was removed in conference committee by Rep. Gene O'Flaherty (D-Criminal Defense Lobby). We hope to amend Melissa's Law in 2013 to add post-release supervision. Stay updated on develpments at the Melissa's Law site: http://3strikeslaw.blogspot.com/
