cupofjoe1962

Well the friend of violent felons Govenor Patrick finally signed Melissas bill even though the legislature rejected his "safety valve amendment" that would allow judges some leeway in the three strikes provision of the bill.

Patrick plans to make changes to the bill in the next session.

Why does he feel he needs to protect three strike - violent felons ????

Yeah... Put it in the Judges hands....
Maybe he will appoint Judge Maria Lopez (remember her) to review each
three strike violent felons's history to see how she can help.

Patters

Probably because he trusts the judgment of most judges, and recognizes that our legal system is not always fair. Giving judges some discretion provides a safety valve in those cases where a conviction is made because of poor legal representation or the way someone carries themselves (or even appears). Or do you think, he has a soft spot for violent murderers and rapists?

cupofjoe1962

We are not talking about a two strike non violent felon who got caught stealing a DVD
for his third offense.

We are talking about 3 strike - violent felons.

Do I think Patrick has a soft spot for violent murderers and rapists.

Did you ever hear of Benjamin Laguer?

Benjamin Laguer brutally raped his 59 year old neighbor after trying to strangle her with a telephone cable, and even after Deval Patrick spent his own money to provide LaGuer with a DNA test which proved his guilt he said he still found the man “eloquent” and “charming.”

Patters

Joe, I understand what you're saying, and in fact that's my point too. No judge or no one wants people like Benjamin Laguer out on the streets, and our system worked to prevent that. Obviously, Laguer fooled Patrick with his charm and eloquence. But, just as there are Laguers, there are others who lack charm and eloquence, and can't even defend their innocence. Giving judges some discretion can protect the innocent, though on rare occasion it can also serve the guilty. Giving judges no discretion prevents the rare instance of helping an evil person and prevents the rare instance of severely punishing an innocent person. Almost all judges are pretty good at their jobs.

cupofjoe1962

I hear what you are saying.... but we are not talking about a one time
conviction..... How many innocent people do you believe have been convicted of three different VIOLENT felonies?

The majority of Judges are probably good at their job.
Then again this is Massachusetts and I can't help but wonder how many
judges echo the views of Maria Lopez.

Let me refresh your memory of Judge Maria Lopez.

1960Pats

I used to work with a pedophile who was convicted of molesting an 11 year old boy. All he got from the judge was a couple of years probation. On the first day that he could he took off and moved to Florida.

Wolfpack

Maneuvers like this one make it very easy to believe that yes, he does. Your argument fails because you seem not to realize the "3 strikes" nature of the bill. I can understand guarding against a guy getting hosed by poor legal representation or whatever once or twice.

But if that guy has committed his 3rd crime, he is clearly a habitual repeat offender who deserves to be put away.

Harry Boy

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Wolfpack

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this bill does nothing to prevent a judge from setting aside a guilty jury verdict. I must confess I haven't been following it terribly closely, but I still believe that if a judge thinks the accused is innocent then he can still make the unilater declaration of "not guilty."

Drewski

I tend to agree with ya here Wolf.

What's that old saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.