Choices on crime
Like the Senate, the state House of Representatives is taking a kitchen-sink approach to reforming the criminal justice system. The House bill, which will be taken up this week, is 119 pages. It addresses everything from arrest through sentencing through postconviction. Both branches may be trying to do too much at once.
But as long as the Legislature is determined to engage in largescale reform of the system we find more to like in the House approach than we do the Senate’s.
Start with the House decision to leave the age of criminal majority for adults in Massachusetts at 18. The Senate wants criminal cases involving 18-year-olds handled in juvenile court, out of public view, and the goal of many senators is to eventually raise the age to 21. This is exceedingly lenient, unfair both to crime victims and to the public.
The House also ignored the Senate’s well-intentioned but inappropriate attempt to regulate sexual relationships among teens, part of an effort to reform the state’s statutory rape law.
Like the Senate, the House increases the threshold for felony larceny, but the House only moves up to $750 (from $250), rather than the Senate’s ludicrous $1,500.
And when it comes to sentencing reform, really the meat of these bills, both the House and Senate want to repeal mandatory minimums for certain drug crimes, including distribution of cocaine. But unlike the Senate the House would retain mandatory minimums for highvolume trafficking. And unlike the Senate there’s no retroactivity — meaning no swift release of individuals currently serving time for crimes that previously carried mandatory minimums.
In response to concerns from district attorneys, the bill makes it easier to prosecute those who deal carfentanil, the deadly synthetic opioid. Fentanyl and carfentanil would both be considered Class A drugs, maximizing the penalties for possession and distribution.
“I think this legislation provides workable reforms that will help bring equity to our criminal justice system,” said retired Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Roderick Island, who consulted with the House on its proposal. “It is a reform plan for the real world.”
We do have concerns with the House bill — how far it goes in allowing individuals convicted of crimes to have their criminal records expunged, for example. But not as many as we do with the Senate version.
Both House and Senate leaders say their goal is to strike a balance between protecting public safety and opening doors for those with criminal records who find the path to employment and housing blocked. It’s a worthy goal, but too often the balance in the Senate bill swings in favor of the criminal.