Boston City Councilors Discuss "Three Strikes" Laws

The discussed several bills before the state Senate and House to enact so-called "three-strikes" legislation.

District 4 Councilor Charles Yancey proposed the council send a resolution to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and the state Legislature to thoroughly study the implications, both financial and in human terms, the law could have on Boston.

Several councilors, including West Roxbury's Matt O'Malley said Yancey's resolution was premature, as three bills are being discussed in state committees, including Melissa's Bill. 

O'Malley said he'd like the council to have a hearing once the state committees discuss the state laws. The Boston City Council held similar hearings on the changes to the C.O.R.I. (criminal offender record information) system. 

The councilors also voiced concerns about three strike laws similar to California's law, which has given life sentences to non-violent criminals.

"Do I want to give non-violent repeat felons given life sentences? Of course not," said O'Malley. "The three strikes law, particularly the California model is not what folks are talking about in Massachusetts."

O'Malley said the discussions in Massachusetts are only about giving life sentences to severe violent criminals such  as murderers and rapists. He said the governor's office said there are approximately 87 of these cases in Massachusetts.

"I'm vehemently opposed to Massachusetts modeling anything after the distater that is California's three-strikes law. The economic and human toll of California's three-strikes law is staggering," said .

The "three-strikes law" would compel judges to sentence anyone convicted of three crimes – in certain categories – to long prison sentences.

Yancey said the council needs to "tell the members of the House, the Senate, and yes, even the governor's office to slow down, study it." 

Several councilors were also not pleased with Yancey's resolution. Councilors instead wanted the issue to go to committee, where they could draft a more comprehensive message stating what they would like the legislature to do.

But while councilors were concerned about the state passing a law they viewed as draconian, they made sure to clarify that violent offenders should be behind bars.

"There's a difference to me between someone who is evil enough to assault a person sexually or take a life, and someone who just made some bad choices," said , echoing sentiments shared by other councilors. 

The group agreed that in most cases involved nonviolent crime, a lifelong prison sentence is not a smart way to deal with crime.

"You can be tough on crime, and you ought to be, and you can be smart on crime, and you ought to be," said .