Download Stop 3-Strikes Fact Sheet 2012 *click to download*
Send an easy email to your legislators and the Conference Committee: http://tinyurl.com/3strikesletter
Rally and Lobby Day Report Back
On March 15, over 400 people came to the State House to stop the controversial 3-Strikes bill and demand Smart on Crime Sentencing Reform. A broad range of 70 organizations endorsed this action and demanded new policies that would reduce the prison population and re-direct funds towards jobs creation, housing, rehabilitation and education for ex-offenders.
The energized crowd chanted “Stop 3-Strikes, Jobs Not Jail!” and heard speakers from NAACP, EPOCA, Boston Workers Alliance, and Blackstonian. Faith speakers included Rev. Dickerson of Greater Love Tabernacle and Rev. Dan King of UU 1st Congregational Parish in Kingston, MA. Legislators and City Councilors including Sen. Brownsberger, Sen. Chang-Diaz, Rep. Henriquez, Rep. Rushing, City Councilors Arroyo and Pressley all spoke in support of our advocacy.
Hundreds of participants then entered the State House to lobby their Reps and Senators and to bring the community message to our elected officials. Residents spoke to over of 60 legislators and dropped post-cards and fact sheets at all 200 offices.
Key Advocacy:
YES: [+] Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Offenses, and [+]
Shrink School Zones to 100ft
NO: [-] Stop 3-Strikes, and [-] No Mandatory Parole for All Prisoners
We thank the 70 organizations that supported this pivotal action and
call on all concerned residents to intensify our advocacy against this
dangerous bill. Join the movement to Stop 3-Strikes and win Smart on
Crime Sentencing for our state.
Endorsing Organizations*
Aid to Incarcerated Mothers
Alternatives for Community Environment (ACE)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Friends Service Committee
APIA Movement
Arise for Social Justice
Arlington Street Church (Social Committee)
Artists for Humanity
Asian American Resource Workshop
Black Educators Alliance of Massachusetts
Blackstonian.com
Boston Workers Alliance
Cambridge Peace Commission
Chelsea Collaborative
City Life / Vida Urbana
Coalition Against Poverty / Coalition for Social Justice
Coalition for Effective Public Safety
Codman Square NDC
Community Change Inc.
Community Church of Boston
Community Labor United
Criminal Justice Policy Coalition
Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corp
Dorchester People for Peace
EPOCA - Ex Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement
Families Against Mandatory Minimums
Gavin House
Grove Hall Neighborhood Development Corporation
Hyde Square Task Force
Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action
Jobs With Justice
Lansing Workers Center
Louis D. Brown Peace Institute
Marcus Garvey House
Mass Global Action
Mass Alliance of Minority Law Enforcement Officers
Massachusetts Communities Action Network
Massachusetts Jobs with Justice
Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery
MassUniting
NAACP New England Area Conference
National Association of Social Workers - MA
National Lawyers Guild
Neighbor to Neighbor MA
Neighbors United for a Better East Boston
Network for Immigrant and African American Solidarity
New England United for Justice
Nuestra Community Development Corporation
Occupy Boston-POC Working Group
Occupy The Hood Boston
Oiste! Latino Civic Engagement Organization
Partakers, Inc.
Prisoners’ Legal Services
Right to the City Alliance Boston
Roca
Rosie’s Place
Roxbury Dorchester Labor Committee
SEIU 1199 Healthcare Workers
SEIU 615 Building Service Workers
Side-by-Side Community Circle
Sisters At Work
Social Workers for Peace and Justice
SPAN
STRIVE, Inc.
Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Northeastern University School of Law
Survivor’s Inc.
The Real Cost of Prisons Project
The Springfield Institute
Union of Minority Neighborhoods / MARC
Unite Here! New England Joint Board
United for Justice With Peace
Urban League of Eastern Mass
Universalist Unitarian Mass Action
Voices of Liberation
Young Cape Verdean Club
*Contact Boston Workers Alliance to endorse the campaign
—
Selected News Stories from 3/15 Rally
Opponents of Mass. “3 Strikes” Bill Rally at the State House
by Jason Pramas (Staff), Mar-15-12
Open Media Boston
BOSTON/State House - Over 300 activists representing at least 65
community organizations and unions from around Massachusetts held a
rally in front of the State House today in opposition to a proposed
“Three Strikes” bill that they say will disproportionately affect low
income communities of color and cause already overcrowded prisons to
become even more overcrowded.
The bill, H.3818/S.2080, would mandate life imprisonment after a third
offense from a proposed list of violent crimes. It passed the House
and Senate overwhelmingly last fall - but its two versions are still
being debated in Conference Committee before proceeding to the floor
for a vote.
Proponents of the bill - including police and victim’s rights
organizations - say that it has been crafted to specifically limit the
number of people that could be eligible for automatic life
imprisonment to only a small number of very violent repeat offenders.
They believe that without the bill, some violent criminals will be
able to return to the streets and commit major - sometimes horrific -
crimes again and again.
Opponents respond that the bill is unnecessary since there are already
laws on the books to imprison repeat offenders for long periods of
time, and that, if anything, there are too many people going to jail
for minor nonviolent offenses - and being forced to stay there far
longer than necessary by laws that have made the prison system more
and more unfair to disenfranchised communities over the last few
decades. They call for major reforms to the Mass. criminal justice
system to make it more fair and humane.
After several speeches from political, religious and prison reform
leaders, rally attendees proceeded inside the State House for a lobby
day aimed at gaining enough legislative support to kill or
significantly modify the bill.
For more information on the Mass. Three Strikes bill debate, check out
Proponents: “Melissa’s Bill” Blog
Opponents: Boston Workers Alliance
This article is a news brief.
http://www.openmediaboston.
….
State legislators debate implementing ‘3 strikes’ rule
March 16, 2012 | By Kyle Cheney
Boston Globe
Describing a war on Beacon Hill over mandatory minimum sentence
policies, a freshman lawmaker contended Thursday that most of his
colleagues voted to crack down on habitual felons last year without
understanding the consequences.
“We’re going to war in here; we’re going to battle about this bill,’’
said state Representative Carlos Henriquez, Democrat of Dorchester,
adding, “We have found out that most of our colleagues who voted for
this bill originally did not do so with the full knowledge of what
this bill will do to our communities.’’
Henriquez spoke at the foot of the State House at a rally against
legislative efforts to eliminate parole and impose maximum sentences
for criminals convicted of a third felony. The “three-strikes’’ idea
has been championed for decades by Republican lawmakers and governors,
but only after the shooting death of a Woburn police officer in 2010
did Democratic leaders take up the cause.
Opponents have contended that the proposal would worsen prison
overcrowding, that it was too broadly crafted to deprive parole for
felons who commit nonviolent crimes, and that it would add millions of
dollars in costs to a cash-strapped prison system. Others, including
those at the rally, contended that the bill would disproportionately
target minority convicts.
Rally organizers, under the banner “Smart on Crime, Massachusetts,’’
brandished signs reading “Who came up with three strikes? Who is
affected? People of color’’ and others calling the proposal “the new
Jim Crow.’’ Supporters said more than 65 organizations attended the
rally.
State Representative Byron Rushing, Democrat of Boston and a member of
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo’s leadership team who voted against the
crime bill, attended the rally, as well. He declined to speak with a
reporter as he pressed into the crowd, which numbered in the hundreds.
Over the objection of the members of the Black and Latino Legislative
Caucus, the House voted hurriedly in November on a bill to achieve
that policy, beating the clock before a seven-week recess.
The House vote came six days after the Senate unanimously passed a
more sweeping package, a move that some House members said put a
political squeeze on them to quickly follow suit even though formal
sessions are not scheduled to end until July. During its consideration
of the bill, House leaders combined a series of amendments into a
single “consolidated amendment,’’ a process that is typically used
only during consideration of the state budget, to speed the bill’s
passage.
Supporters of the bill said at the time that the proposal was
necessary to shore up public safety by keeping the state’s most
dangerous criminals behind bars, while making reforms to the state
parole system that some critics said had failed by allowing violent
offenders out of prison only to have them commit new crimes.
“It captures those who, quite frankly, have no place in society,’’
Representative David P. Linsky, a Natick Democrat, said during debate
on the bill on Nov. 16. State Representative Paul Adams, Republican of
Andover, said that the bill would capture the “most heinous
criminals.’’
Since then, the two bills have been locked in a six-member committee
charged with reaching consensus on the proposals. DeLeo has opted
against calling for a vote on many policies in the Senate’s proposal,
including a plan to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for certain
drug crimes, to expand wiretapping authority for the State Police and
to require mandatory supervision for former inmates.
Instead, House leaders have sought to use negotiations to preclude
wider deliberation among House members, floating pared-down proposals
to see whether the Senate will concede.
http://articles.boston.com/
….
Rep. Henriquez: House members unaware of offender bill impacts at time of vote
By Kyle Cheney, State House News Service
Mar. 15, 2012
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, MARCH 15, 2012…..Describing a “war” on Beacon
Hill over mandatory minimum sentence policies, a freshman lawmaker
contended Thursday that most of his colleagues voted to crack down on
habitual felons last year without understanding the consequences.
“We’re going to war in here. We’re going to battle about this bill,”
said Rep. Carlos Henriquez (D-Dorchester), adding, “We have found out
that most of our colleagues who voted for this bill originally did not
do so with the full knowledge of what this bill will do to our
communities.”
Henriquez spoke at the foot of the State House at a rally against
legislative efforts to eliminate parole and impose maximum sentences
for criminals convicted of their third felony. The “three-strikes”
proposal has been championed for decades by Republican lawmakers and
governors, but only after the shooting death of a Woburn police
officer in 2010 did Democratic leaders take up the cause.
Opponents have argued that the proposal would worsen prison
overcrowding, that it was too broadly crafted to deprive parole for
people who commit nonviolent crimes, and that it would stack millions
of dollars in new costs onto a cash-strapped prison system. Others,
including those at the rally, contended that the bill would
disproportionately target minority residents.
Rally organizers, under the banner “Smart on Crime, Massachusetts”
brandished signs reading “Who came up with 3 strikes? Who is affected?
People of color” and others calling the proposal “the new Jim Crow.”
Supporters said more than 65 organizations attended the rally.
Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston), a member of House Speaker Robert
DeLeo’s leadership team who voted against the crime bill, attended the
rally as well. He declined to speak with a reporter as he pressed into
the crowd, which numbered in the hundreds.
Over the objection of the members of the Black and Latino Legislative
Caucus, the House voted hurriedly in November on a bill to achieve
that policy, beating the clock before a seven-week recess. The House
vote came six days after the Senate unanimously passed a more sweeping
package, a move that some House members said put a political squeeze
on them to quickly follow suit even though formal sessions are not
scheduled to end until July 2012. During its consideration of the
bill, House leaders combined a series of amendments into a single
“consolidated amendment” - a process that is typically used only
during consideration of the state budget - to speed the bill’s
passage.
Supporters of the bill argued at the time that the proposal was
necessary to shore up public safety by keeping the state’s most
dangerous criminals behind bars, while implementing reforms the state
parole system that some critics said had failed by allowing violent
offenders out of jail only to have them commit new crimes.
“It captures those who, quite frankly, have no place in society,”
Linsky said during debate on the bill on Nov. 16, 2011. Rep. Paul
Adams (R-Andover) said that the bill would capture the “most heinous
criminals,” who he said should not be parole-eligible.
Since then, the competing bills have been locked in a six-member
committee charged with reaching consensus on the proposals. House
Speaker Robert DeLeo has opted against calling for a vote on many of
the policies included in the Senate’s proposal - including a plan to
reduce mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes and
provisions to expand wiretapping authority for state police and to
require mandatory supervision for ex-inmates. Instead, House leaders
have sought to use negotiations to preclude wider deliberation among
House members, floating pared-down proposals to see whether the Senate
will concede.
One of the negotiators, Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick), has estimated
that the three-strikes provisions would net only a handful of repeat
offenders each year.
Henriquez, joined by Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Sen. William
Brownsberger (D-Belmont) at Thursday’s rally, pointed out that the
Housed passed the bill 142-12 in November.
“We want to win this. I don’t want to do any vote that’s just
ceremonial,” Henriquez said, arguing that state dollars spent on
incarceration would be better spent in education programs. “I really
want to win this vote.”
Boston City Councilor Felix Arroyo, Democratic activist Grace Ross,
and officials from the National Association of Social Workers,
Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the ACLU, Neighbor to Neighbor
and the Massachusetts Council of Churches were on hand.
House negotiators, led by Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty (D-Chelsea),
presented a new version of their proposal this week that would sharply
reduce the list of crimes that would trigger the loss of parole for
third-time felons. Under the revised plan, the list, which had
previously approached 50 crimes was pared nearly in half, eliminating
arson of a house, carjacking, unlawful possession of an assault
weapon, stalking, disseminating or possessing child pornography, and
“stealing by confining or putting in fear.”
The remaining crimes that could trigger the loss of parole include
murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, poisoning, incest, human
trafficking, armed robbery and use of a firearm during the commission
of a felony.
Opponents of mandatory minimum sentences praised the reduction.
Barbara Dougan, head of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said the
group was “heartened” by the change. She also praised O’Flaherty’s
plan for proposing to shrink the size of a school zone - the radius
around schools in which drug crimes carry an automatic two-year
minimum sentence - to 100 feet from 1,000 feet, matching a proposal
made last year by Gov. Deval Patrick. The House proposal would also
eliminate the stepped-up school zone punishment between midnight and 5
a.m.
Critics of the current school zone say it disproportionately nabs
urban residents, some of whom can be hit with a mandatory minimum for
committing crimes in their own homes, which fall within school zones.
The Senate’s bill would shrink the school zone to 500 feet, and
efforts to shrink it further were voted down in that branch.
Rally organizers are also seeking the elimination of mandatory minimum
sentences for nonviolent drug offenses and the elimination of
mandatory supervision for former prisoners in favor of additional
reentry programs in prisons and jails. In a letter to the conference
committee sent Thursday afternoon, they criticized the House
negotiators for removing a provision that would require convictions
counting toward the three-strikes punishment be accompanied by jail
terms of at least three years.
“Because crimes punished by lesser sentences tend to be less serious,
this loophole would expand enormously the number of people with minor
criminal records who would be subject to indictment as habitual
offenders,” they wrote. “We urge the Conference Committee to retain
the 3-year requirement.”
—
IV. Smart on Crime Fact Sheet and Endorsing Organizations
Community Priorities for 2011-2012 Sentencing Legislation
Coming together are thousands of people from all over Massachusetts,
representing a broad array of faiths, union locals, law enforcement
leaders, taxpayers and families. We are united in seeking the
following goals.
On Three Strikes – or “Mandatory Maximum Sentencing”
We oppose any form of mandatory, or automatic, sentencing because it
removes a judge’s informed discretion from the sentencing process. As
conservative law professor William Stuntz wrote, such laws have
transformed our judicial system from a venue for resolving guilt or
innocence to a bureaucratic machine designed to coerce “guilty” pleas.
[read “Where American Criminal Justice Went Wrong,” Boston Globe
2/26/12] The changes proposed in S.2080 and H.3818 would add to prison
overcrowding and ballooning prison costs – by up to $125 million per
year. There are major flaws in the proposed legislation, which create
a danger of massive over-incarceration. This directly harms tax
payers, punishes the families of people given inordinately long
sentences, and eliminates funding for needed state programs. We have
identified many crimes, like “breaking and entering,” that should not
trigger maximum sentences without the possibility of parole. Also, the
law must only apply to prior convictions for which a person served at
least three years in state prison to limit it to serious repeat
offenders. If this law is intended to affect only the “worst of the
worst,” as we are told, we call upon the Legislature to significantly
narrow the three strikes provisions.
Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences
Mandatory minimum drug sentences are one-size-fits-all sentences that
are often disproportionate to the offense. They are largely
responsible for the 500% growth in American prison populations in the
last 30 years and for the disproportionate incarceration of minority
communities. Governor Patrick has proposed to restore judicial
discretion in sentencing for non-violent drug crimes (H.40), but the
Senate elected only to shorten the minimum sentences by roughly 30%,
leaving the coercive force of the automatic sentences intact. The
House has so far done nothing. We call upon the Legislature to repeal
mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses.
School Zones
If you live in a city and are charged with a drug crime, you will
almost certainly face a term of incarceration two years longer than
someone charged with the same crime in a suburban or rural community.
Because the ‘school zone’ includes a 1,000 foot radius around any
school facility or park, most urban areas are included. African
Americans are 26 times more likely, and Latinos 30 times more likely
as White residents to be convicted and receive a school zone sentence.
[see www.prisonpolicy.org/ zones.html] Governor Patrick proposed
shortening the zone to a 100 foot radius (H.40), which more accurately
targets the visible area around schools or parks. We call upon the
Legislature to decrease the school zone to 100 feet.
Mandatory Post-Release Supervision
Adding nine months to two years of supervision to the sentence every
state prisoner who is not paroled – at an annual cost of roughly $10
million – is another costly misallocation of resources. Hiring more
parole officers to supervise people who have completed their sentences
is a waste of valuable resources. Instead, that $10 million should be
spent addressing people’s mental health, addiction recovery, and
educational needs so that they will be prepared to succeed after
incarceration. Research
shows this approach to be far more effective in reducing recidivism
than supervision. We call upon the Legislature to remove this
provision from any law passed this year and to allocate the funding to
rehabilitative programs that will reduce recidivism.
