Strike Out “Three Strikes”

On October 1, 1997 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Somerville was murdered. His body was sexually assaulted and dumped into the Great Works River in Maine. The public was shocked and the Massachusetts legislature, in an attempt to show that it was tough on crime, nearly enacted a bill that would have reinstated the death penalty for the Commonwealth. The bill came within one vote of passage. It failed when Rep. John Slattery of Peabody switched his vote out of concern that innocent people would be executed. Since that time a number of states have joined Massachusetts in banning the death penalty. 

On November 23, 2011, Robert DiNapoli a Woburn policeman was shot and killed during a botched robbery attempt at a Woburn jewelry store. Once again, the legislature tried to show it is tough on crime and hurriedly proposed a law that we can live without. This one has the euphemism “Three Strikes, You’re Out” and is just as much of an over reaction as was the death penalty bill of 1997. 

In an attempt to bring some sanity to the debate, “Smart on Crime Massachusetts” recently presented its case to the legislature. Members of the group said the legislation would lead to increased prison spending without any increase in public safety. “This is not a bill that is smart about crime,” said Charles Ogletree, director of Harvard Law School’s Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice. “This is something that was thrown together by the Senate and the House trying to show that they are tough on crime.”

Under the bill, which is currently before a House-Senate conference committee, a person convicted of two serious offenses who is found guilty of a third serious crime would be subject to the maximum penalty under the law and no possibility of parole. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill include the three-strike provisions, but the House version contains fewer violent crimes that would trigger the penalty. The Senate bill would also require mandatory post-release supervision for prisoners who have served their entire sentences and reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses.

The tough-on-crime tone of the Massachusetts legislation stands in stark contrast to what is going on in many other states trying to find ways to move inmates out of prison.

According to information distributed by Smart on Crime MA, the proposed legislation would force an already overburdened Department of Corrections to spend between $75 million and $125 million more per year in addition to forcing the department to build a new prison for 1,500 to 2,500 habitual offenders. Kathleen Dennehy, a former Massachusetts Department of Correction commissioner, said those prisoners would be disproportionately African-American and Latino.

Hopefully the legislature will recognize that we don’t need “Knee Jerk” legislation and strike out “Three Strikes”.