Pubdate: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 Source: Boston Herald (MA) Copyright: 2004 The Boston Herald, Inc Contact: http://www.bostonherald.com/news.html Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/53 Author: Howie Carr Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) BID TO DECRIM HOOKERS AND FLASHERS A REAL CRIME And now, from those wacky folks at the Supreme Judicial Court who brought you homosexual marriage, here comes some of their appointees, pushing still more groundbreaking legal theories. How does decriminalizing indecent exposure sound? What about making prostitution a civil, rather than a criminal, offense? Hookers, pimps and flashers, come on down! The SJC's fellow travelers at the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) want to make sure all you deviants won't have to worry about having a criminal record. Their goal is to make indecent exposure like a parking ticket - that's this month's "evolving paradigm" of justice from the Margaret Marshall crew. And that's not all. If CPCS gets its way, judges can decide that shoplifting is not a crime. Ditto, marijuana possession, public drinking and selling alcohol to minors. Soliciting for a house of ill fame? So what! All of the above might still technically be misdemeanors, but a judge would have the option of reducing them to civil infractions. This proposal to decriminalize flashing and streetwalking was trotted out last week in front of the Legislature's Ways and Means Committee by the CPCS, the agency that provides legal assistance to the poor. The CPCS is run by a 16-member board, all of whom are appointed by the SJC, which means Margaret Marshall. The rationale behind this semi-decriminalization is it will save the state money - $2 million in all. Thanks, but most people would prefer to know who the sex offenders are in their neighborhoods. A call was placed to William Leahy, the CPCS chief counsel, who testified in favor of these proposals. "If people have a problem with indecent exposure, we can take it out," he said. "That's a minor item. We can address prostitution, too." Apparently, since 1995 the district attorneys have had the option to make "oral motion" to judges to decriminalize all these offenses. "But," said Leahy, "the DA's have never used it." Gee, why do you suppose that is? Perhaps elected officials understand their constituents don't approve quite so heartily of this sort of behavior as your average SJC justice. Leahy says people convicted of these crimes never go to jail for them anyway, so why not save a few bucks by letting judges decide whether they should be prosecuted? I'll tell you why - because too many judges around here are already going overboard to pamper perverts. "I told the committee," said Leahy, "if you want to add a provision giving the DA's the right to reinstate criminal charges that the judge downgraded, that's fine." Isn't the judge supposed to be overseeing the prosecutors, rather than vice versa? And think of the revenge the next Maria Lopez could extract on some poor prosecutor trying to convict the next Ebony Horton. But what can you expect from people appointed by Margaret Marshall? I wish I had space to tell you about the records of some of the lawyers on the CPCS panel. One screamed in court that her cop-killer client was framed. Another sued a New York prison for not allowing vegan meals for his client, a PETA member doing time for a protest that involved a threat of arson. The CPCS board member said the ban on vegan meals violated the putative PETA torch's "sincere beliefs in non-violence toward all sentient beings." In a way, though, wouldn't you like to see indecent exposure decriminalized in Massachusetts, if only to see John Kerry having to explain it out there in flyover country? - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom