Gov. Deval's Efforts on the Reformation of the Mass Parole Board

The Mass Law for releasing a prisoner is as follows:

Release Criteria

"No prisoner shall be granted a parole permit merely as a reward for good conduct but only if the parole board is of the opinion that there is a reasonable probability that, if such prisoner is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society..." M.G.L c. 127 § 130. 

In 2006 in a 5 - 1 vote, Edward Corliss was released from prison after serving 30 plus years for killing a man in a convenience store robbery. In 2009 Edward not only committed another crime but he killed again, another convenience store clerk. In 2008  in a 6 - 0 vote, Domenic Cinelli was released from prison after serving 30 plus years for a series of armed robberies. In 2010 Domenic tried to rob a Kohl's Department Store the day after Christmas ended up in a shoot out resulting the deaths of not himself a veteran police officer named Officer John "Jack" Maguire. I am giving these examples of two men who have served decades of their lives in prison and released using the current guidelines and given tradegy of the two stories above it is evident that is not working and it's time for a change. There are people who beleive that some prisoners who are serving life sentences should not be released at all. If that were to be to be put into action it would only lead to more over crowding in the prisons and wasting of tax payers dollars. I am of the mindset that reform and rehabiliation are two major  factors that need to be looked at when a prisoner goes before the parole board.  


In 2011 Govenor Patrick Deval accepted the resignation of 5 of the Parole Board Members. “After this review I cannot say that the parole board or the parole office did all they could to assure public safety,” Mr. Patrick said at a news conference. “I also see clear gaps in our existing laws. As a result, the public has lost confidence in the parole system.”  In the FY12 Budget Reccomendations Gov. Deval also said "Current policy and practice has led to overcrowded prisons, has done nothing to reduce recidivism, and will ultimately jeopardize public safety."  The Governor’s initiatives "will 1) make our communities safer; 2) ensure that all released offenders are supervised; 3) reduce recidivism (repeat criminal activity) by improving the re-entry of offenders into society; and 4) reduce escalating corrections costs."




I believe that once a man has served his time or a substantial amount of his time he should afforded the opportunity to participate in an effective transitional release program allowing him to return to his family and society. An offender's parole should be structured around the kind of crime he committed. For example, if he committed an armed robbery because of a drug habit he should be released to a drug treatment program. A stipulation of his parole should be that he is working on or has corrected what ever he is lacking and that landed him in jail in the first place. If he doesn't have a GED or high school diploma he should be made to get one. I think that all prisoners before being released should be enrolled in some type of life skills training program so that they can be a productive member to the society that they are entering back into. 

Facts
1)  Marie Szaniszlo, Boston Herald
2)  Globe Staff, Boston.com
3)  Deval L. Patrick, Governor and Timothy P. Murray, Lt. Governor, FY2012 House 1 Budget Recommendation: Criminal Justice Reform  - Issues in Brief
4)  Daryl Cagle, Cartoon Web Log    

The Rich Bay Stater's Pony Up to the "Buffett Rule"!

It seems to as though President Obama will have his way with the Buffett Rule. For those who don't know, the Buffett Rule would be a tax increase on the wealthy. But to others, it would mean an end to a series of tax breaks that has seen America's wealthiest citizens paying proportionally less taxes than their middle class counterparts.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan doesn't agree with Obama's new Buffett Rule plan.  He feels as if we would see America's wealthiest .3% citizens paying more taxes, this would amount to class warfare. Most Republicans see the Buffett Rule as being portrayed as an attempt to raise taxes on the rich or merely an attempt to cut back past decades of historic tax breaks for the country's wealthiest citizens.

Warren Buffet wrote an article for the New York Times  and said "While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," and he also said "Last year my federal tax bill -- the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf -- was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4% of my taxable income -- and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33% to 41% and averaged 36%."  I personally agree with the rule, everyone in American should pay their fair and equal share of taxes. I don't think the rich should get taxed at a higher rate, I just feel like we should all be paying the same percentage when it come to taxes. Why should should your bank account determine if you get a tax break or not?

Facts:
1)   Chris Cassidy, Boston Herald
2)   Warren Buffet,  Stop Coddling the Super-Rich - The New York Times. August 13, 2011