http://www.exhibitanews.com/article...s-dropping-Statistics-indicate-true--by-a-lot
True or false? Crime in Massachusetts is dropping
Statistics indicate 'true' -- by a lot
POSTED: Friday, February 1, 2008
by David E. Frank
[email protected]
With stories of mounting murder rates, record numbers of teens firing guns and brazen courthouse attacks regularly dominating the headlines, news that crime in Massachusetts has skyrocketed in recent years doesn’t exactly stop the presses.
But this just might: Data collected annually by the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission shows that the number of individuals being convicted of criminal behavior in state courtrooms is down.
Way down.
Despite an 11 percent increase over the past seven years in the number of people spending time behind bars, Sentencing Commission statistics from fiscal year 2006 reveal that, in comparison to 1999, 14,000-plus fewer individuals were found to have broken the law.
“I know a lot of people may be surprised by the results, but I’m not because our data shows that there has been a fairly substantial reduction in the crime rate,” says Francis J. Carney Jr., executive director of the commission since its inception in 1994. “So it makes sense that conviction totals would go down as well. Between 1995 and 2000, the crime rate reduction was 30 percent in Massachusetts, [which] parallels the reduction in the number of convictions.”
While Carney and others are not suggesting that the downward spiral has eliminated the system’s pressing sentencing problems, particularly in the area of prison overcrowding, the data analyzed by Exhibit A backs up the notion that the number of individuals convicted — nearly 85 percent of whom were men at a median age of 32 — has fallen.
“When this report first came out, we were probably at just about the peak of the crime rate in Boston and in Massachusetts,” Carney notes. “In a way, we almost had nowhere to go but down.”
Down and out
In 2000, 63,541 defendants were convicted of crimes on the sentencing grid, which includes all offenses that carry the possibility of a jail sentence (with the exception of operating under the influence and mandatory firearm infractions, which are classified separately).
By 2006, that figure fell by nearly 8,900, with guilty findings entered in the cases of 54,652 defendants following a plea or trial.
That number was more than 36,000 less than the 91,511 who were convicted in 1994 when the commission was first created to help provide uniformity and consistency in state sentencing.
While the data collected by the Sentencing Commission shows that the overall totals are down, Carney says the decrease is far more noticeable in misdemeanor cases.
In 1994, according to Carney, there were 22,021 convictions for motor vehicle offenses. By 2006, that number fell to 10,210 — a 54-percent reduction.
But 9,000 beds short
Despite the crime rate reduction, a number of lawyers and judges say other portions of the Sentencing Commission report speak to new and growing state court troubles.
At a sentencing symposium last fall, Judge Robert A. Mulligan told the audience that Sentencing Commission data revealed that, as of Sept. 1, more than 25,000 people were incarcerated in Massachusetts — the highest total in state history.
He added that county jails were operating 160 percent over capacity, while the state prison system was at 130 percent.
When asked to explain the overcrowding problem, Mulligan and others at the symposium pointed to sentencing statistics that show a greater number of people, mostly minorities, doing time for mandatory drug crimes.
That increase, they said, means more and more cells are being occupied by drug offenders.
“We’re 9,000 beds short of what we need,” Mulligan said. “We have to be more intelligent about our use of those beds, and one way to do that is to do something about mandatory-minimum [sentences] on drug crimes.”
While the mandatory-sentence numbers are up, defense attorney Michael J. Traft of Boston, a former prosecutor who currently sits on the Sentencing Commission, says the small number of offenders serving 15-year minimum sentences reveals a flaw in the state’s drug laws.
“The fact that there are a only a handful of people doing 15-year sentences would indicate that that we are either only arresting the mini-players and not getting any of the major drug dealers, or they are being plea-bargained down,” he says.
Several sources claim that of those serving such 15-year sentences, the majority has minimal records.
“The numbers indicate to me that the lower-level drug cases are the crimes that are being prosecuted more heavily and are causing a lot of the overcrowding of the institutions,” says Traft. “So, obviously, it’s a policy question as to whether that makes sense or not.”
But one assistant district attorney, requesting anonymity, says the problems cited in the commission’s data have no impact on his decision-making when it comes to resolving a drug case.
“What are they saying? That drug dealers shouldn’t be in prison? If the Legislature says what the minimum punishment on a conviction should be, my job is to follow [those terms] if someone is found guilty,” says the prosecutor, who regularly handles trafficking-level drug indictments. “If they change the law on Beacon Hill, that’s one thing. But until then, I’m not going to lose sleep about overcrowding and sentencing statistics.”
‘A tall task’
But Judge Mulligan, who testified in favor of sentencing reform at a hearing last November before the House Judiciary Committee, hopes change is on the horizon.
Mulligan has indicated, in particular, that school-zone infractions, which carry mandatory-minimum two-year sentences, should be done away with where they unfairly affect those living in urban areas and fail to punish high-end dealers.
Randy S. Chapman, president of the Massachusetts Academy of Criminal Defense Lawyers, calls the school-zone statute the “most racist piece of legislation ever promulgated in this state.”
The inmate population growth reflected by the Sentencing Commission data is startling, he adds.
“I have clients who are literally sleeping on the floors of gymnasiums where you have 30 people sharing one bathroom,” he says. “The data clearly shows that we’re over spending, and we’re over incarcerating people.”
Calling the system flawed, Chapman says he recognizes the nearly insurmountable task ahead for those hoping to change drug-sentencing laws.
“Eliminating mandatory minimums is the legal equivalent of curing AIDS,” he says. “It’s a tall task undoubtedly because you have years and years of momentum that this sentencing philosophy has built up, and you need to somehow blunt that and realize that it isn’t working.”
Sen. Robert S. Creedon, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee, says public furor and political discomfort on Beacon Hill have caused similar initiatives in the past to fizzle before they were even debated.
“As soon as the discussion in the newspapers and elsewhere becomes one of being soft on crime, what we’ve seen is that initiatives like this go nowhere,” he says. “But the data is there, and it clearly shows we have a problem that needs fixing.”
What kills me about this is the line "the number of individuals being convicted of criminal behavior in state courtrooms is down. Way down." So the lower the number of convictions, the less crime there is, and I'm safer. Every one of those CWOFs, dismissed cases after paying court costs, and filed without a finding for criminal cases I read about in the court logs is making this state safer one step at a time.
To me this only re-enforces that saying that "laws define crime, not prevent it."
True or false? Crime in Massachusetts is dropping
Statistics indicate 'true' -- by a lot
POSTED: Friday, February 1, 2008
by David E. Frank
[email protected]
With stories of mounting murder rates, record numbers of teens firing guns and brazen courthouse attacks regularly dominating the headlines, news that crime in Massachusetts has skyrocketed in recent years doesn’t exactly stop the presses.
But this just might: Data collected annually by the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission shows that the number of individuals being convicted of criminal behavior in state courtrooms is down.
Way down.
Despite an 11 percent increase over the past seven years in the number of people spending time behind bars, Sentencing Commission statistics from fiscal year 2006 reveal that, in comparison to 1999, 14,000-plus fewer individuals were found to have broken the law.
“I know a lot of people may be surprised by the results, but I’m not because our data shows that there has been a fairly substantial reduction in the crime rate,” says Francis J. Carney Jr., executive director of the commission since its inception in 1994. “So it makes sense that conviction totals would go down as well. Between 1995 and 2000, the crime rate reduction was 30 percent in Massachusetts, [which] parallels the reduction in the number of convictions.”
While Carney and others are not suggesting that the downward spiral has eliminated the system’s pressing sentencing problems, particularly in the area of prison overcrowding, the data analyzed by Exhibit A backs up the notion that the number of individuals convicted — nearly 85 percent of whom were men at a median age of 32 — has fallen.
“When this report first came out, we were probably at just about the peak of the crime rate in Boston and in Massachusetts,” Carney notes. “In a way, we almost had nowhere to go but down.”
Down and out
In 2000, 63,541 defendants were convicted of crimes on the sentencing grid, which includes all offenses that carry the possibility of a jail sentence (with the exception of operating under the influence and mandatory firearm infractions, which are classified separately).
By 2006, that figure fell by nearly 8,900, with guilty findings entered in the cases of 54,652 defendants following a plea or trial.
That number was more than 36,000 less than the 91,511 who were convicted in 1994 when the commission was first created to help provide uniformity and consistency in state sentencing.
While the data collected by the Sentencing Commission shows that the overall totals are down, Carney says the decrease is far more noticeable in misdemeanor cases.
In 1994, according to Carney, there were 22,021 convictions for motor vehicle offenses. By 2006, that number fell to 10,210 — a 54-percent reduction.
But 9,000 beds short
Despite the crime rate reduction, a number of lawyers and judges say other portions of the Sentencing Commission report speak to new and growing state court troubles.
At a sentencing symposium last fall, Judge Robert A. Mulligan told the audience that Sentencing Commission data revealed that, as of Sept. 1, more than 25,000 people were incarcerated in Massachusetts — the highest total in state history.
He added that county jails were operating 160 percent over capacity, while the state prison system was at 130 percent.
When asked to explain the overcrowding problem, Mulligan and others at the symposium pointed to sentencing statistics that show a greater number of people, mostly minorities, doing time for mandatory drug crimes.
That increase, they said, means more and more cells are being occupied by drug offenders.
“We’re 9,000 beds short of what we need,” Mulligan said. “We have to be more intelligent about our use of those beds, and one way to do that is to do something about mandatory-minimum [sentences] on drug crimes.”
While the mandatory-sentence numbers are up, defense attorney Michael J. Traft of Boston, a former prosecutor who currently sits on the Sentencing Commission, says the small number of offenders serving 15-year minimum sentences reveals a flaw in the state’s drug laws.
“The fact that there are a only a handful of people doing 15-year sentences would indicate that that we are either only arresting the mini-players and not getting any of the major drug dealers, or they are being plea-bargained down,” he says.
Several sources claim that of those serving such 15-year sentences, the majority has minimal records.
“The numbers indicate to me that the lower-level drug cases are the crimes that are being prosecuted more heavily and are causing a lot of the overcrowding of the institutions,” says Traft. “So, obviously, it’s a policy question as to whether that makes sense or not.”
But one assistant district attorney, requesting anonymity, says the problems cited in the commission’s data have no impact on his decision-making when it comes to resolving a drug case.
“What are they saying? That drug dealers shouldn’t be in prison? If the Legislature says what the minimum punishment on a conviction should be, my job is to follow [those terms] if someone is found guilty,” says the prosecutor, who regularly handles trafficking-level drug indictments. “If they change the law on Beacon Hill, that’s one thing. But until then, I’m not going to lose sleep about overcrowding and sentencing statistics.”
‘A tall task’
But Judge Mulligan, who testified in favor of sentencing reform at a hearing last November before the House Judiciary Committee, hopes change is on the horizon.
Mulligan has indicated, in particular, that school-zone infractions, which carry mandatory-minimum two-year sentences, should be done away with where they unfairly affect those living in urban areas and fail to punish high-end dealers.
Randy S. Chapman, president of the Massachusetts Academy of Criminal Defense Lawyers, calls the school-zone statute the “most racist piece of legislation ever promulgated in this state.”
The inmate population growth reflected by the Sentencing Commission data is startling, he adds.
“I have clients who are literally sleeping on the floors of gymnasiums where you have 30 people sharing one bathroom,” he says. “The data clearly shows that we’re over spending, and we’re over incarcerating people.”
Calling the system flawed, Chapman says he recognizes the nearly insurmountable task ahead for those hoping to change drug-sentencing laws.
“Eliminating mandatory minimums is the legal equivalent of curing AIDS,” he says. “It’s a tall task undoubtedly because you have years and years of momentum that this sentencing philosophy has built up, and you need to somehow blunt that and realize that it isn’t working.”
Sen. Robert S. Creedon, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee, says public furor and political discomfort on Beacon Hill have caused similar initiatives in the past to fizzle before they were even debated.
“As soon as the discussion in the newspapers and elsewhere becomes one of being soft on crime, what we’ve seen is that initiatives like this go nowhere,” he says. “But the data is there, and it clearly shows we have a problem that needs fixing.”
What kills me about this is the line "the number of individuals being convicted of criminal behavior in state courtrooms is down. Way down." So the lower the number of convictions, the less crime there is, and I'm safer. Every one of those CWOFs, dismissed cases after paying court costs, and filed without a finding for criminal cases I read about in the court logs is making this state safer one step at a time.
To me this only re-enforces that saying that "laws define crime, not prevent it."
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
![[sad]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/004.gif "Sad [sad]")
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
