The good news is that we have a significant bill to reform the Massachusetts justice and
corrections systems. The bad news is that legislators are afraid of political repercussions of being smart on crime instead of tough on crime, out-dated practices that delivered us a racist system of mass incarceration.
The buzz on Beacon Hill is that because crime and punishment are hot buttons, many state legislators want to avoid antagonizing a constituent into running against her or him.
Hence, we expect NO ACTION will be taken to bring the Omnibus Bill out of conference committee until AFTER May 25, the last day candidates can file to run for state office in Massachusetts on the ballot. [Write-ins are always possible.]
The conference committee is struggling to resolve Mandatory Minimums. Most district attorneys use the possibility of a mandatory minimum sentence in drug cases to threaten and intimidate someone into pleading guilty to a lesser charge and shorter sentence.
With the power granted by mandatory minimums, District Attorneys are empowered to act as prosecutor, judge and jury, at their discretion, only answering to voters. In the voting booth, a typical voter doesn’t realize the power of a district attorney, and they often run unopposed.
Some legislators and grieving parents mistakenly believe that mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses will end the war on drugs, and eliminate drug dealers. This is false. Mandatory minimums have NOT ended the drug war, just filled up our prisons and jails. Drugs are still available to buyers and addicts.
What a difference a District Attorney Makes
EMIT and the ACLU of Massachusetts have partnered on the project What A Difference A DA Makes. Educational events to raise awareness of this campaign have already been happening, including in Arlington, Mass. If you would like to host an event on What a Difference A DA Makes, contact email@example.com.
Continuing Education and Networking opportunities