Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Patrick calls the bill "a good start."
Gov. Deval Patrick on Tuesday ended speculation that he might kill the mandatory sentencing bill he had objected to but the Legislature supported. Calling the bill "a good start," Patrick said he would sign it but wants to see changes made to it in the next legislative session. "I still believe there is a necessary role for judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing and many of the advocates of this bill have pledged to support that next year," he wrote on his website Tuesday. "The Senate President and the Speaker have pledged to return to the subject of mandatory minimum sentencing early in the next session. I take them at their word." As it stands, the so-called "three strikes" bill, also dubbed "Melissa's Law" after a Jamaica Plain…
After Tuesday, the House and Senate will not have an opportunity to override any veto.
Although the legislative session ends Tuesday at midnight, Gov. Deval Patrick has 10 days to sign any bills that land on his desk. But anything he vetoes cannot be overridden since the Legislature will have adjourned. Perhaps the most-watched bill in this scenario is the mandatory sentencing bill, also called the "three-strikes" law or "Melissa's Bill," over which the governor and Legislature have locked horns. The bill eliminates parole for someone convicted three times of one of 40 or so violent crimes, with at least one conviction having carried a minimum three-year prison term. Although it passed with overwhelming support in both chambers last week, Patrick sent it back on Saturday, asking for an amendment that increases judicial …
Monday, July 30, 2012
The governor on Saturday sent the anti-crime bill back to the Legislature.
Gov. Deval Patrick set in motion a wave of criticism when he sent back the popular "three strikes" crime bill on the grounds that it lacked sufficient provisions for judicial discretion. Warning of possible unintended "unjust consequences" that can arise from mandatory sentencing laws, Patrick wrote in a letter to the Legislature, "None of us is wise or prescient enough to foresee each and every circumstance in which the new habitual offender provisions may apply." On Monday afternoon, the House rejected Patrick's amendment by a vote of 132-23, according to The Boston Globe. Patrick has not indicated whether he would veto a bill that doesn't have the amendment. Critics accuse Patrick of jeopardizing a good anti-crime bill by asking for …
John D
3:15 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Boston City Council can't support the bill considering their history of criminal members. Chang-Diaz would lose half of her voters. Boston needs this bill to protect innocent bystanders from the savages shooting at all hours of the day and on the T as well. stop the PC nonsense and keep criminals in jail. more ›