Pubdate: Thu, 01 Apr 2004
Source: Metrowest Daily News (MA)
Copyright: 2004 MetroWest Daily News
Contact:  http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/619
Author: Michael Kunzelman
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prison.htm (Incarceration)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

CREEM - LOWER SENTENCES FOR DRUG OFFENDERS

BOSTON -- A MetroWest lawmaker, frustrated the state spends more money on 
prisons than higher education, is urging her colleagues to pass legislation 
that would relax the minimum mandatory sentences for convicted drug offenders.

State Sen. Cynthia Creem, D-Newton, sponsored a bill that would allow drug 
offenders to qualify for parole once they serve two-thirds of a minimum 
mandatory sentence.

Creem said paroling non-violent drug offenders could save taxpayers up to 
$15 million annually and would help them make a more successful transition 
back into society.

"Mandatory minimum sentences aren't working. There doesn't seem to be a 
compelling reason to have them," she said. "These offenders are not a 
threat to society. We shouldn't be paying so much money to incarcerate them."

Creem's bill is bottled up in the Criminal Justice Committee, despite 
support from the committee's Senate chairman, Sen. Thomas McGee, D-Lynn. 
The committee is a joint House and Senate panel.

Creem and McGee are scheduled to hold a press conference today at the State 
House in an effort to rally support for the measure.

Many lawmakers, though, including McGee's counterpart on the committee, 
remain skeptical.

"I'll need to be convinced," said state Rep. James Vallee, a Franklin 
Democrat and the committee's House chairman. "Any time we're letting people 
out of prison and reversing mandatory minimums, it's certainly something 
that should be closely scrutinized from a public safety perspective."

The bill also has its share of supporters.

Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said 
Creem's proposal, although a "small step" in terms of policy changes, could 
generate significant savings.

In November, the foundation issued a report that shows the state spent $830 
million on correctional services and $815 million on higher education in 
the current fiscal year. That is the first time in decades that the budget 
for prisons has surpassed higher education, the report stated.

"That represents a major change in priorities, even if it was happening 
gradually," said Widmer, who is expected to endorse Creem's bill at the 
press conference.

State Rep. David Linsky, a Natick Democrat who co-sponsored the measure, 
said paroling drug offenders would cut down on recidivism rates because 
they would be supervised upon their release from prison.

"Right now, offenders who complete mandatory minimum sentences are walking 
out of prison with no probation, no supervision," said Linsky, a former 
prosecutor. "Saving money is an ancillary benefit. This is really about 
keeping future crimes from happening."

Approximately 2,000 of the 23,000 inmates in Massachusetts state and county 
lockup are currently serving mandatory minimum drug sentences, according to 
Leslie Walker, executive director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services.

"All this bill does is allow them to see the parole board. It doesn't open 
the prison doors," Walker said.

Mandatory minimum sentences range from one to two years for cocaine 
distribution and marijuana trafficking to 15 years for cocaine and heroin 
trafficking.

"A lot of these people are the ones the Parole Board wants to see," Walker 
said. "They're people who messed up and want to admit their guilt and be 
good parolees."

Last year, Superior Court Justice Robert Mulligan, chairman of the 
Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, sent Creem a letter in which he 
expressed support for giving judges more discretion to impose sentences for 
drug offenses.

Mulligan said some of Massachusetts' mandatory drug sentences are "very 
long" in comparison to those in other states as well as in the federal courts.

Quoting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Mulligan said mandatory 
minimums are "harsh and in many cases unjust."

"If this principle applies to future drug offenders who will be sentenced 
under the guidelines, it should also apply to those currently serving 
mandatory terms for drug offenses," Mulligan wrote. "Therefore, as a matter 
of justice, it would be fair to provide some avenue of relief for those 
presently serving mandatory terms."

But some lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, R-North 
Reading, believe Creem's bill takes a piecemeal approach to sentencing reform.

"Quite frankly, I don't know why we would take a more comprehensive 
approach to sentencing guidelines as opposed to picking out certain 
crimes," Jones said.

Jones said he is not "reflexively opposed to having more discretion on 
sentencing for certain crimes," but doesn't think Creem's bill is the 
proper vehicle for reforming mandatory minimums.

"I don't think the bill is going to move (this year)," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl