editorial comment Indeed, it must be shameful to be a jurist and enforce this stuff.....

One of Massachusetts' top judges denounced the state's sentencing laws Monday, saying that the mandatory two-year sentence for drug possession near schools discriminates against minorities, does not deter crime and decreases faith in the judicial system.

Robert A. Mulligan, who became the chief justice for administration and management in October 2003, said that 90 percent of the people who receive the mandatory sentences for possessing drugs within 1,000 feet of the school are minorities.

``I'm not saying that minorities are being targeted, and I'm not saying that the arresting officers are unfair, but I'm saying that the policy itself is not wise,'' Mulligan told the Associated Press. ``The policy has a discriminatory effect.''

The 1989 law, passed at the urging of then-Gov. Michael Dukakis, has had the greatest impact in urban settings, Mulligan said, because there are few areas in any Massachusetts cities that are not within 1,000 feet of a school.

In Boston, Mulligan said, ``unless you're on the tarmac of Logan Airport, you're within 1,000 feet of a school.''

``The purpose behind school zones is to keep drugs away from schools and that's a legitimate purpose,'' Mulligan said. ``But school doesn't have to be in session, it can be at night, it can be during the summer. So it doesn't really achieve its goals.''

The cumulative effect, Mulligan said, is that ``it really increases skepticism in the fairness of the system.''

Gerry Stewart, of the Suffolk District Attorney's office, said the law is written the way it is for a reason.

``The law has a wide scope in its intent to protect children of all ages,'' said Stewart, who is Suffolk's second assistant district attorney. ``The police are certainly targeting drug-dealers where they find them, regardless of ethnicity.''

Mulligan, a former assistant U.S. Attorney and assistant Attorney General for Massachusetts, has been a judge since 1980 and was longtime chairman of the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission.

The commission proposed eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, but favored establishing longer sentences for 48 crimes, including assault and battery.

Mulligan said Monday that mandatory minimums, in general, were ``too harsh'' and were implemented differently in different counties, depending on the willingness of the local district attorney to decrease the penalty for a particular charge.

This leads, Mulligan said, to two people serving vastly different sentences for the same crime, depending on where the live.

Leslie Walker, executive director of the Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, which represents prisoners, said she fully supports Mulligan's assessment of mandatory minimums for drug crimes.

``It places nonviolent offenders in prison, causing further overcrowding,'' Walker said. ``Those prisoners are ineligible for parole. They complete their entire sentence behind the wall, then they're released to the street without any support or supervision, causing a public safety crisis.''

back | to top | full article >>