Yesterday, Massachusetts became the latest state to enact a three-strikes law as Governor Deval Patrick (D) signed the H.3818 crime bill.
(The text of the bill is available here.)
Governor Patrick had returned the bill to the legislature last weekend with proposed amendments for a limited judicial safety valve. The amendments were rejected by both the Massachusetts Senate and House of Representatives, and the bill was returned to Patrick’s desk as originally passed.
As under other three-strikes laws, the Massachusetts statute establishes mandatory sentencing guidelines and eliminates the possibility for parole for “habitual offenders” upon the third conviction for certain violent and sexual crimes. Without inclusion of Patrick’s safety valve amendment, this three-strikes provision bars judges from considering any mitigating circumstances or individual aspects of particular cases when sentencing for third violations of this kind.
Three-strikes laws place unnecessary burdens on our already stretched-thin criminal justice system, not to mention remove discretion from the very people entrusted with determining the appropriate sentence: judges themselves. With three-strikes laws on the books, judges consider solely guilt or innocence, and not additional factors such as years since last conviction, age of the defendant or potential for rehabilitation and treatment in cases involving substance abuse.
Removing parole eligibility entirely, particularly in cases of life sentences, is fiscally irresponsible given the overcrowded state of our prisons and the unfathomable costs required to incarcerate so many individuals each year. There is a reason 80- and 90-year-olds receive parole, even among the most heinous offenders: they are not a threat to society. Barring all parole eligibility whatsover is a fantastic way for state legislators to score tough-on-crime credits while passing the bill for keeping prisoners behind bars longer (and even indefinitely).
There are some bright points in the Massachusetts crime bill, however, as pointed out by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) Massachusetts director Barbara J. Dougan:
The new law includes reforms that FAMM has supported for years: limiting the state’s “school zone” law and making some drug offenders now in prison eligible for the same reentry opportunities – parole, work release and earned good time – that are available to most other prisoners. The new law also reduces the length of some mandatory minimum sentences and increases the quantity of drugs needed to trigger certain low-level trafficking offenses.
Governor Patrick has called for specific attention to sentencing reform for the Massachusetts legislature’s next session. In doing so he joins public officials across the country who have begun to take a closer look at mandatory minimums and similar sentencing statutes, and found them severely wanting in terms of justice and practicality.
While the crime bill’s sentencing reforms and Patrick’s calls for further measures are welcome, tinkering with judicial discretion is not the appropriate way forward. Returning to individualized sentencing without mandatory minimums and restoring discretion to those entrusted with the execution of justice is the appropriate path to take toward a fairer society.
About David Matson