(already subscribe? log in).

Three-strikes rhetoric heats up

THIS STORY APPEARED IN
Boston Articles
February 01, 2012|By Meghan E. Irons
  • Sonia Chang-Diaz agonized over her initial vote in the state Senate but then supported the three strikes law. Shell decide             on the final version when she sees it.
Sonia Chang-Diaz agonized over her initial vote in the state Senate but…

Public outcry over the killing of Woburn police officer John Maguire on Christmas weekend in 2010 by a hardened criminal out on parole gave state Representative Bradford Hill a chance he had been waiting a decade for — winning approval in the House for his tough-on-crime three-strikes bill.

Now he has another ally in his push to get it passed: an election year.

With November looming, analysts say lawmakers may already have in mind a nugget of political wisdom — that voting against crime bills like the three-strikes proposal could become potent ammunition for opponents to accuse of them of being soft on crime.

“ ‘Three strikes and you’re out’ is so seductive in how the public perceives it,’’ said James Jennings, a professor of urban policy at Tufts University. “There is a rhetoric and there’s a frenzy out there. And some lawmakers may not be strong enough to stand up to that.’’

Since lawmakers approved three-strikes legislation by overwhelming margins last fall, critics have mounted an aggressive campaign, saying it is overly broad and would condemn to long prison sentences many nonviolent criminals and a disproportionate number of minorities. But even as some of that criticism has gained traction with statewide religious groups, few lawmakers appear willing to reconsider.

“I think it’s pretty clear that most people want us to be tough on crime and get tougher on crime,’’ said Representative Harriett L. Stanley a West Newbury Democrat who is not planning to change her support for the measure. “You never say never, but I am not particularly persuaded by what I’ve heard in the last few days from opponents.’’

The legislation seeks maximum sentences and restricts eligibility for parole for felons who offend a third time.

Black clergy, prison advocates, and groups such as the NAACP have recently lobbied hard against the bill, arguing that it would have a disproportionate impact on black and Hispanic communities.

They have also asserted it would cost the state millions, strain an already overcrowded prison system, and adopt a three-strikes law just as other states, including California, are abandoning them.

Legislative leaders have just as vehemently retorted that the proposal in committee is nothing like failed three-strikes laws in other states, and is not the draconian proposal that critics make it out to be. They also say the number of offenders affected by the law would be small.

Much of the controversy stems from the Senate crime bill, which includes a three-strikes provision. It would impose strict restrictions on eligibility for parole for a wide variety of crimes and includes stiff penalties not only for violent offenses but others such as larceny by check and wiretapping.

Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
|
|