Charges to be Declined

[WeatheredWarrior]

Rachel Rollins, the new Suffolk County DA-Elect here is good ol' MA has a list of charges that will be declined. I'm stunned, to say the least, and I'm wondering if I just don't possess the legal smarts to fully understand. From where I sit, it looks like Boston and the surrounding areas will become a free-for-all after January 2nd, 2019 when she takes office.

Here is a link to her website where they are listed, no spin. How in the world does this make any kind of sense? Why would someone run, and get elected, on a platform of not prosecuting crimes?

https://rollins4da.com/policy/charges-to-be-declined/

 

[FSUdawg]

I can't answer that without getting political, which is not allowed on this board.

 

[runkpanole]

Suffolk County sounds like it will be a fun area.

 

[TripTych]

I just don't possess the smarts to fully understand.

Correct.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

A couple of those I can see. The entire list is crazy. Really depends on how often supervisor permission will be sought and granted.

 

[Fijimn]

Rachel Rollins, the new Suffolk County DA-Elect here is good ol' MA has a list of charges that will be declined. I'm stunned, to say the least, and I'm wondering if I just don't possess the legal smarts to fully understand. From where I sit, it looks like Boston and the surrounding areas will become a free-for-all after January 2nd, 2019 when she takes office.

Here is a link to her website where they are listed, no spin. How in the world does this make any kind of sense? Why would someone run, and get elected, on a platform of not prosecuting crimes?

https://rollins4da.com/policy/charges-to-be-declined/

Because the courts and jails are clogged with non-violent petty offenses, that can be better handled with a citation, restitution, etc. Makes no sense to send someone to trial for MIP and having a small amount of drugs.

 

[montconole]

DC decriminalized fare jumping on the Metro yesterday. Metro is running in the red and in need of major repairs, but DC is Ok with losing $25 million a year in additional revenue.

 

[Random_John]

The answer is, instead of court cases they will now have to write sentences on a chalk board.

 

[runkpanole]

Because the courts and jails are clogged with non-violent petty offenses, that can be better handled with a citation, restitution, etc. Makes no sense to send someone to trial for MIP and having a small amount of drugs.

Yes, I can agree with that. However, wanton destruction of property? She is basically giving permission for people to trash someones car because they got into an argument over a parking spot.

 

[NoleLizards]

I tried telling my mom it was no big deal when I lifted a toy robot she wouldn't buy for me from the store as a young kid. She spanked me and made me take it back and apologize.

 

[Fijimn]

Yes, I can agree with that. However, wanton destruction of property? She is basically giving permission for people to trash someones car because they got into an argument over a parking spot.

Wanton is the mens rea. Meaning need intent or reckless disregard. These are all misdemeanors, so you are looking at property damage of less than 250. I suspect mostly involving minor vandalism I.e spray painting. It’s important to note that the offender is not permitted to vandalize. Just they will look at punishment being a citation, restitution and/or community service.

 

[funksouljon]

I would think this will be an interesting social experiment.

Cops will see that the headache of arrest, citation, etc for the crimes being dismissed and they will stop a lot of enforcement for the list of charges. Then the citizens will begin to complain. But hey, they get what they wanted.

Looks like they are also taking donations for something. To implement the new DA's program?

 

[thunderdog10]

Because the courts and jails are clogged with non-violent petty offenses, that can be better handled with a citation, restitution, etc. Makes no sense to send someone to trial for MIP and having a small amount of drugs.

or, just dont commit petty offenses??

 

[Fijimn]

I would think this will be an interesting social experiment.

Cops will see that the headache of arrest, citation, etc for the crimes being dismissed and they will stop a lot of enforcement for the list of charges. Then the citizens will begin to complain. But hey, they get what they wanted.

Looks like they are also taking donations for something. To implement the new DA's program?

Why would the cops have a headache and stop enforcing. If they come upon an offense, they can stop and issue a citation. Much less work than writing a report, testifying at trial, etc.

 

[TennNole17]

Makes sense to me.

 

[Fijimn]

New Orleans changed possession of marijuana to a ordinance violation. $50 citation. Makes a ton of sense.

 

[NolesofWrath]

Why would the cops have a headache and stop enforcing. If they come upon an offense, they can stop and issue a citation. Much less work than writing a report, testifying at trial, etc.

It's not like writing a traffic ticket. Cops still have to write a report, collect evidence, take statements. Is equivalent to a notice to appear in which the defendant is given a ticket and sent on their way. Cops still have to complete that paperwork along with documenting the incident as I stated above.

 

[WeatheredWarrior]

Correct.

Excellent input. Feel better?

 

[WeatheredWarrior]

Things like decriminalizing weed make a ton of sense to me. Greenlighting breaking and entering, and resisting arrest don't. I could even get on board with the possession part, until she added the 'with intent to distribute'.

I didn't consider this political. As far as I know, all sides of the house believe in upholding law and order. This just seems like a disaster in the making. It's not like this is some tiny county in Western Mass, Suffolk County encompasses Boston and the surrounding areas.

At any rate, I'm seriously trying to understand the logic behind this, and some of the replies have been quite helpful. I love gaining perspective when possible.

 

[Fijimn]

Things like decriminalizing weed make a ton of sense to me. Greenlighting breaking and entering, and resisting arrest don't. I could even get on board with the possession part, until she added the 'with intent to distribute'.

I didn't consider this political. As far as I know, all sides of the house believe in upholding law and order. This just seems like a disaster in the making. It's not like this is some tiny county in Western Mass, Suffolk County encompasses Boston and the surrounding areas.

At any rate, I'm seriously trying to understand the logic behind this, and some of the replies have been quite helpful. I love gaining perspective when possible.

It's B&E if a vacant building or entry was to seek shelter from the cold and there was no property damage. It's resisting arrest when that is the only crime the accused is charged with or the additional crime is one of the excused one. The conditions matter when discussing this. Otherwise it turns into an AM-radio talking point taken out of context.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Maybe I’m missing something - I don’t see anything about issuing a citation or payment of a fine, just that cases should be (1) dismissed outright or (2) where appropriate, diverted and handled through community service or restitution.

Sounds to me like the first option is the DA’s preferred approach so I’m not sure why cops would continue to bother arresting people for these types of crimes.

Dunno, I guess I get the rationale but don’t care for shoplifting and theft getting a pass.

 

[runkpanole]

Maybe I’m missing something - I don’t see anything about issuing a citation or payment of a fine, just that cases should be (1) dismissed outright or (2) where appropriate, diverted and handled through community service or restitution.

Sounds to me like the first option is the DA’s preferred approach so I’m not sure why cops would continue to bother arresting people for these types of crimes.

Dunno, I guess I get the rationale but don’t care for shoplifting and theft getting a pass.

The dismissal outright is my concern. I fear it is more likely to lead people to take matters into their own hands as the police will be neutered.

 

[Fijimn]

The dismissal outright is my concern. I fear it is more likely to lead people to take matters into their own hands as the police will be neutered.

I agree. That’s a concern. And we are just going off her campaign website, so we don’t know what is being implemented. But I think rethinking the one size fits all theory to criminal justice is a good thing.

 

[runkpanole]

I agree. That’s a concern. And we are just going off her campaign website, so we don’t know what is being implemented. But I think rethinking the one size fits all theory to criminal justice is a good thing.

I don’t disagree with that either.

 

[funksouljon]

Why would the cops have a headache and stop enforcing. If they come upon an offense, they can stop and issue a citation. Much less work than writing a report, testifying at trial, etc.

It's not like writing a traffic ticket. Cops still have to write a report, collect evidence, take statements. Is equivalent to a notice to appear in which the defendant is given a ticket and sent on their way. Cops still have to complete that paperwork along with documenting the incident as I stated above.

Exactly. So why go through the steps of arrest and then report if it is going to be null prosecute? Do a half hour - hour of paperwork for a dismissal? The point behind the effort is to unclog the system for the violent crimes, which is what the police will focus on as well. So they will show up, shoo the offenders away and likely return later when they get called back. Many of the crimes on the list are not citation, but are arrest offenses in most places. And generally speaking, those offenses are pled out anyways so the cops don't have to go to court as is.

Some of those absolutely should be decriminalized, but a number of them are not.

But I am utterly baffled at possession with intent to distribute (generally a felony) is going to be a null prosecute.

 

[billanole]

Exactly. So why go through the steps of arrest and then report if it is going to be null prosecute? Do a half hour - hour of paperwork for a dismissal? The point behind the effort is to unclog the system for the violent crimes, which is what the police will focus on as well. So they will show up, shoo the offenders away and likely return later when they get called back. Many of the crimes on the list are not citation, but are arrest offenses in most places. And generally speaking, those offenses are pled out anyways so the cops don't have to go to court as is.

Some of those absolutely should be decriminalized, but a number of them are not.

But I am utterly baffled at possession with intent to distribute (generally a felony) is going to be a null prosecute.

Well, the possession with intent part may be a way to level the playing field with CVS. Why should big pharma get a pass but not a local just trying to make a living?

 

[runkpanole]

Well, the possession with intent part may be a way to level the playing field with CVS. Why should big pharma get a pass but not a local just trying to make a living?

Well, because dispensing controlled substances without a license is illegal. Listen, I'm all for ending the war on drugs, but she is acting as a legislator rather than an enforcer. If she wants to change the law, she needs to run for the state legislature.

 

[Fijimn]

Well, because dispensing controlled substances without a license is illegal. Listen, I'm all for ending the war on drugs, but she is acting as a legislator rather than an enforcer. If she wants to change the law, she needs to run for the state legislature.

This is correct.

 

[KitingHigh]

Half the list is nuts. The other half is spot on.

 

[funksouljon]

Well, the possession with intent part may be a way to level the playing field with CVS. Why should big pharma get a pass but not a local just trying to make a living?

So let's ignore the illegality at the federal level for just one moment. While it is a critical distinction, let's table that.

One advantage of purchasing drugs from CVS and not Steve your local dealer is accountability. If Steve is lacing your drug of choice, or making it in a bath tub with zero skills, who knows WTH the drug will do to you when you consume it. Now CVS and big pharma are at least clear on the dosage and what is in the drug.

And big pharma SHOULDN'T get a pass, but the fix is correcting big pharma, not making it the wild west for any hustler to dispense recreational drugs from some street corner.

And the products that CVS is selling have medicinal value. Not here to defend how much value, there are plenty wrong with the industry, but pain killers, even though abused, have a valid purpose. Meth is just to get high.

You don't really think her goal is to "level the playing field" between a street dealer and a group of multi-billion $ companies do you? I know that's what you typed, but you aren't serious are you? The products the two groups are selling are very different.

 

[billanole]

Well, because dispensing controlled substances without a license is illegal. Listen, I'm all for ending the war on drugs, but she is acting as a legislator rather than an enforcer. If she wants to change the law, she needs to run for the state legislature.

I have no argument with your post, but maybe shaking things up is what it takes.
Our nation is under siege from legal pushers. The oxy crap was “sold” to our doctors under the guise of not getting people hooked. As I say, why does big dope get a pass?
Society needs to tell big pharm/dope/distributors to take a hike, or, own up to the mess you have created with the help of bought and paid for lawmakers.
If we won’t stop them, why bother the little guy selling a bit of pot? Just because it is “illegal”? Why turn a blind eye to legal pushers whose product is bankrupting our society? They are buying lawmakers via “campaign” contributions, even as law enforcement wastes time chasing simple users.
Let us not be hypocrites any longer as a society.

 

[billanole]

So let's ignore the illegality at the federal level for just one moment. While it is a critical distinction, let's table that.

One advantage of purchasing drugs from CVS and not Steve your local dealer is accountability. If Steve is lacing your drug of choice, or making it in a bath tub with zero skills, who knows WTF the drug will do to you when you consume it. Now CVS and big pharma are at least clear on the dosage and what is in the drug.

And big pharma SHOULDN'T get a pass, but the fix is correcting big pharma, not making it the wild west for any hustler to dispense recreational drugs from some street corner.

And the products that CVS is selling have medicinal value. Not here to defend how much value, there are plenty wrong with the industry, but pain killers, even though abused, have a valid purpose. Meth is just to get high.

You don't really think her goal is to "level the playing field" between a street dealer and a group of multi-billion $ companies do you? I know that's what you typed, but you aren't serious are you? The products the two groups are selling are very different.

My goal is to end the hypocrisy of pharma selling products that hook and destroy people without proper costs to their bottom line. Society as a whole is absorbing the costs, while lawmakers sucking up donations are complicit.
I want to see local production of pot, just like tobacco and alcohol products, that are not beholden to big dope or tobacco.
It is way past time to stop to continue funding big narco in other countries. The market is not going away. Let it instead be served by locals rather than narco terrorists.
Look at the bottom line if nothing else and realize how much money could stay in Colorado, North Carolina, Kentucky, etc.. rather than going across the border.

 

[Bill From Tampa]

Rachel Rollins, the new Suffolk County DA-Elect here is good ol' MA has a list of charges that will be declined. I'm stunned, to say the least, and I'm wondering if I just don't possess the legal smarts to fully understand. From where I sit, it looks like Boston and the surrounding areas will become a free-for-all after January 2nd, 2019 when she takes office.

Here is a link to her website where they are listed, no spin. How in the world does this make any kind of sense? Why would someone run, and get elected, on a platform of not prosecuting crimes?

https://rollins4da.com/policy/charges-to-be-declined/

It appears to be an invitation for petty crimes to increase. Whether they will or not and be accurately calculated remains to be seen.

 

[billanole]

It appears to be an invitation for petty crimes to increase. Whether they will or not and be accurately calculated remains to be seen.

It could be, and NYC went hard after simple crimes under Gooliannee in order to crack down overall.
Pick a side... “crime” diminished, civil rights violations went up.
It seems that we are at a cross roads regarding certain “crimes”.
Lock them up and throw away the key has devastated certain groups, enriched private vendors, and blown a gap in our budgets.
White collar crime is at a possible all time high. Those cats do it and walk away with wrist slaps. Street crime fills for profit jails, who then lobby for tougher sentences.
The hew and cry for lower taxes means less money for rehab, more push off to law enforcement, who turn it over to for profits. Rinse, repeat.
Meanwhile, every possible advertising stream tries to sell you dope. Most of it, you have no idea what it is for. Ask your doctor, the ad says.... press your doctor for it, in other words. Legal pushers. Tobacco can’t advertise in print or on TV. Why can pharm?
Take a real look at the money. It is the money. Benjamins. $$$

 

[funksouljon]

It could be, and NYC went hard after simple crimes under Gooliannee in order to crack down overall.
Pick a side... “crime” diminished, civil rights violations went up.
It seems that we are at a cross roads regarding certain “crimes”.
Lock them up and throw away the key has devastated certain groups, enriched private vendors, and blown a gap in our budgets.
White collar crime is at a possible all time high. Those cats do it and walk away with wrist slaps. Street crime fills for profit jails, who then lobby for tougher sentences.
The hew and cry for lower taxes means less money for rehab, more push off to law enforcement, who turn it over to for profits. Rinse, repeat.
Meanwhile, every possible advertising stream tries to sell you dope. Most of it, you have no idea what it is for. Ask your doctor, the ad says.... press your doctor for it, in other words. Legal pushers. Tobacco can’t advertise in print or on TV. Why can pharm?
Take a real look at the money. It is the money. Benjamins. $$$

I don't disagree with any of this. However change for sake of change isn't progress. Fix the real issue with valid steps but a "screw it, let everyone sell illicit drugs <cause companies do> and see what happens" is not going to fix anything, it will make it worse.

 

[KitingHigh]

I don't disagree with any of this. However change for sake of change isn't progress. Fix the real issue with valid steps but a "screw it, let everyone sell illicit drugs <cause companies do> and see what happens" is not going to fix anything, it will make it worse.

It was a wrong change to outlaw drugs in the first place. Did you know drugs are illegal because it was beleived they caused interracial sex. I’m not making that up. It really is why the US outlawed “illicit” drugs. Also the only reason caffeine wasn’t outlawed is because Coca Cola was powerful enough to get it off the list.

Drug prohibition is every bit as wrong and damaging as alcohol prohibition was if not worse. The lobby’s against legalized drugs are almost exclusively those that make money from them being illegal. Alcohol and pharma and law enforcement. Follow the money. Drug prohibition causes far more harm than good and nobody that started or supports it ever had any altruistic intentions.

 

[billanole]

I don't disagree with any of this. However change for sake of change isn't progress. Fix the real issue with valid steps but a "screw it, let everyone sell illicit drugs <cause companies do> and see what happens" is not going to fix anything, it will make it worse.

Agree with you, but I didn’t see her suggesting anybody, everybody could set up a stand.
Lots of companies have jumped the hoops to brew and distribute beer in recent years. Plenty of start ups in the distillery or even moonshine trade are paying taxes while plying their product. Set it up so that pot is legal nation wide, with the associated regulations. Tax revenues will soar, and the narcos will be slowed down.
Let’s get beyond regulating social behavior while allowing financial shenanigans. Other societies teach their young to be smart in their use of intoxicating substances. Why does our country allow hypocrites to regulate public use, while allowing profiteers latitude to entrap and addict multitudes behind a veneer of “regulation”?
Drug companies are multinational profiteers who leave you and me trying to pickup the pieces, while you seem to worry about the local guy not being precise in his dosage.
Let’s go after the real issue. I applaud the lady’s honesty.
Be truthful, if our nation was on a more realistic path, we would not see so much need for substance interaction. A fair way forward for folks to raise families and get along would see a downturn in substance usage. Continued class distinctions will only continue the negative paths we walk.

 

[Bill From Tampa]

It was a wrong change to outlaw drugs in the first place. Did you know drugs are illegal because it was beleived they caused interracial sex. I’m not making that up. It really is why the US outlawed “illicit” drugs. Also the only reason caffeine wasn’t outlawed is because Coca Cola was powerful enough to get it off the list.

Drug prohibition is every bit as wrong and damaging as alcohol prohibition was if not worse. The lobby’s against legalized drugs are almost exclusively those that make money from them being illegal. Alcohol and pharma and law enforcement. Follow the money. Drug prohibition causes far more harm than good and nobody that started or supports it ever had any altruistic intentions.

Making drugs legal is not going to eliminate the health problems from using drugs.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Having seen it firsthand I don’t have a real issue with marijuana legalization, but I’m just not comfortable personally with legalization of harder drugs. The effects are so different.

 

[KitingHigh]

Making drugs legal is not going to eliminate the health problems from using drugs.

No, but it will lessen them and it will eliminate other bigger problems that only exist because of the war on drugs.

Of course it would also take power away from the police state and compete with the current legal drug dealers. That’s why they spend millions lobbying to keep drugs illegal.