November 26, 2025 • 37 mins
A Massachusetts bill has been introduced that would raise the age of Juvenile Court jurisdiction from 18 to 21 years old. Proponents of the bill argue that the brain doesn’t fully develop until around the age of 24 or 25. Rather than be tried and sentenced in the state’s adult criminal system, juvenile offenders would instead be provided with access to mental health and behavioral programming. Do you support or oppose this bill? Rep. James O’Day, one of the bill’s sponsors, checked in to discuss!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Denay on WVS Boston's news radio fan.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Welcome back everyone. We're going to talk a little bit
about crime and punishment in Massachusetts. Callwealth of Massachusetts for many,
many years had capital punishment available in the judicial system.
Capital punishment was first ruled to be unconstitutional as cruel
and unusual punishment by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court. Federal
(00:29):
US Supreme Court outlawed capital punishment in the Firman versus
Georgia case back in nineteen seventy two. It was reinstated,
and there is the federal death penalty does exist, as
certainly Boston Bomber Number two knows. But in terms of
at the state level, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court for
a long time has been on record against capital punishment.
(00:53):
It's been a long and winding road in which was
actually restored by the legendgislature was struck down again by
the State Supreme Court, and then in nineteen ninety seven,
by the margin of one vote, a restoration of capital
punishment in Massachusetts was defeated. It was supported then by
(01:13):
Governor Paul Salucci. Former governorm At Romney also attempted to
bring it back without success, So we don't have capital
punishment in Massachusetts. Many people when they went after and
have argued against capital punishment that said, well, you know,
capital punishment, it was the easy way out. What murderers
(01:34):
really fear is life without parole sentence. Well, that has
been taken care of a little bit by the State
Supreme Court here finding that if you're under the age
of eighteen and you've been convicted capital for an offense,
(01:55):
that that gives you life in life without parole. The
possibility at parole that has been repealed by the State
Supreme Court in a case called Mattis. We can get
into some of the specifics. But now now there's another
piece of legislation that is working its way through the
courts right not to the course to the legislature and
(02:18):
with us A State Representative Jim O'Day of West Boyleston,
He and State Reversient of Many Cruz of Salem, Massachusetts,
introduced this bill House in nineteen twenty three to raise
the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from eighteen to twenty
one years of age. First of all, I want to
welcome Representative oday and wish you in advance a happy
(02:40):
Thanksgiving tomorrow with you and yours.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
How are you tonight, Jim, well doing okay? Thank you
in the same to you, Happy Thanksgiving. I'm happy to
be here this evening. Appreciate the opportunity.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, So what would this in layman's terms? What would
this bill which has been reduced before, but it is
certainly alive at this point. Give us a little sense
of one what the bill would do if passed, and
where it stands at this point in the legislative process.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Joe, and I appreciated that you recognize my colleague Rep. Cruise,
but also a seen of a Creyton, Brendan Creighton from
Lynn who also is a Senate sponsor of this. Okay,
So yeah, So the bill actually would gradually raise the
age of juvenile jurisdiction to include eighteen nineteen twenty year olds,
(03:37):
And it wouldn't happen on the first year, say the
bill was passed at the end of this year. Wouldn't
go immediately to twenty including all eighteen nineteen twenty year olds.
It would would occur over a period around five years.
And I think probably that has some ability for continued
negotiations with what kind of a timeframe we might be
(03:59):
looking at, uh. Presently, the bill has been heard within
the last couple of weeks. It was heard in the
Joint Committee and the Judiciary, and they'll now do some
of their their work on this bill to see, you know,
what's happening with it, what sort of remarks have come
(04:20):
in since the actual testimony occurred, some in favor, some
against the suspect, and hopefully we will get a favorable
report coming out of that committee and we'll see where
it goes beyond there. As you mentioned, the bill has
been around a little bit. It was some activity with
(04:41):
the bill at the tail end.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Of last year.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
The Senate actually had put it into the Economic Development Bill,
and unfortunately, at the time of the Conference Committee that
did not remain within the Economic Development buil, so that
would have only included eighteen year olds as it was
(05:04):
written in the Economic Development Bill and the Conference Committee.
But so we go through the process again and we're
hopeful that we can continue to build and get some
additional support and we'll see where we wind up here
at the end of the session.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Okay, So, from a practical point of view, if in
layman's language, and I realized that the procedural trek is
also always something that the legislators focus on, but from
a proceed from just forget from a procedural point of view,
but from a substantive point of view. If this bill
(05:42):
were to pass, what's the practical impact. My understanding is
that if it were to pass in you know, in
the form that I believe it's proposed, in, people who
commit crimes at the ages of nineteen and twenty and
all the way up say, till till the day they
turned twenty one would no longer be in the adult
(06:05):
criminal justice system. They would be automatically dealt with in
the juvenile justice system, which is very different. I mean the.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Justice I talked about crimes. That's certainly a broad spectrum,
right that could go from you know, someone being charged
with murder, in which this particular peace of legislation really
does not let anyone, so to speak, off the hooked
up up to including you know, someone is stealing a car.
(06:42):
So you know, there are areas of this bill that
do not lose sight of heinous crimes for a second
degree murder, youthful offenders under those under those charges would
still be eligible. That's the right phrase to be considered
you know, having community an adult crime and could still
(07:06):
be you know, charged with and sentenced under first and
second degree murder. So if I could don cases.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Yeah, Jim, just again, I know there's a lot here,
and I want to I want to be fair on
this one. So obvious certain felonies that would not apply
here and and there would be no relief granted to
a juvenile suspect, such as murder manslaughter? Uh are those
(07:41):
specifically exempted? Or to look at it another way, what
what crimes? I know that, and I want to get
into the underlying reason, which is the development of the brain,
which we will get to, I promise. I'm just trying
to understand. Uh, it's if it's not all crimes for
you know, people who are eighteen, nineteen, and twenty, if
(08:06):
some of them statutorily are going to stay within the
adult system. If you could list whatever those crimes are
or give me a sense of those crimes, what I'm
concerned about is if this passes, does it then is
it up to the judges to rule on every specific case?
(08:27):
And as a defense lawyer, can I say, well, my
guy is accused of murder, but it's not a real murder,
and we think that the best it is is an
involuntary manslaughter, and therefore we want out of the adult
criminal justice system. We make a motion to go into
the juvenile system. And is that then up to a
(08:49):
judge or statutorily does it designate what's in and what's out?
If you know?
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Yeah, so, certainly for us in second degree murder cases,
that could, regardless of the age, even if it was
a fourteen year old or a thirteen year old, could
be charged as a youthful offender, which which would put
(09:16):
them on track to be charged as an adult, you know,
whether adult charges.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
So when you say it could be, I don't want
to get hung up on words you say could be.
Is there a presumption that somebody who is under the
age of twenty one is assumed that they are going
to go into the criminal justice system, or is it
(09:44):
assumed they would go into the juvenile justice system if
this passed, and then on motion to a judge, they
could be moved from one to the other. I'm just
when you say that could be, that's what that's what
I'm getting a little hung up on it, and I
don't want to be hung up on it.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Yeah, So teens as young as fourteen year olds right,
chadds Birus. The second degree murder would automatically be prosecuted,
automatically be prosecuted as adults in superior court and subject
to adult sentences. Raise the age does not change the
(10:21):
current statute regarding those offenses, those offenses that are currently
on the books. This bill would not change those statutes.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
So murder cases, what about rape cases.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
There's a little so yes and no with the rape cases.
If there's certain certain results of power and bodily harm
cause within that particular rape case, and that's getting a
little bit more into the weeds relative to that, and
(10:57):
my wherewithal to speak reply to that fair enough. There
is some flexibility with a rape case, for sure.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Okay, let's do this. Let's take up on that point.
Let's just take a break. We've got to do a
couple of commercials, and we'll come back and we'll talk
a little bit more about the rationale behind the bill.
And obviously, if rape is sort of a marginal call,
there must be other cases less serious than rape, but
(11:30):
still serious cases now which automatically would be felonies that
the purpose of the law would be to put them
into the juvenile system. Can we agree on that?
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Fair enough? Yeah, fair enough. We'll get we will get
to the whole question of why the necessity of looking
at people between the ages of eighteen and twenty one
on some crimes. Differently with my guest, STAY Representative Jim O'Day,
who is from Worcester County and he is one of
the primary sponsors of this piece of legislation that he's
(12:04):
actually from West Boyleston, but he represents more than just
West Boylston. We'll get that piece of information from him
as well. Back on Nightside right after this, you're on.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Night Side with Dan Ray on w b Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Stay Representative Jim O'Davis with me, Jim, I know you're
from West Boyleston, but I always like to give members
of the legislation and opportunity to let folks know from
what community, what communities they represent. So if they're listening tonight,
what what communities do you represent besides your hometown of Boylston.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Yeah, so I represent the town of West Boylston and
then the Northern Session of the City of Worcester.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
All right, Okay, good enough people they would know, So
let's talk about the underlying concern here. You you have
not picked numbers out of the ear. You're concerned about
with the development of the brain. I guess the Cerebral
Court text gets kind of complicated here, But basically you're
(13:04):
saying that kids, people who are eighteen, nineteen, and twenty
the brain hasn't fully developed. Is that, and that therefore
we can't hold them to a to a criminal justice
standard of adults. It sounds to me like, is what
you're saying. If I've mis characterized what this bill is
all about, please correct me.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
No, that's pretty accurate, I would say. However, that's not
only I that says that, right, There's tons and tons
of research out there that demonstrates that young folks brains
develop up until the mid twenties. So it's not just
young folks, it's all of us who have come through
you know, the aging process. That's what the data shows us.
(13:45):
But I think a piece of what isn't being spoken
about a little bit too, is you know, a lot
of youth, you know a lot of our youth that
find themselves making you know, silly mistakes and that you know,
running a foul of the law. Just so so many
other conditions that we don't I really think we don't speak.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Enough about you know, you know, what type of.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Environment do they come from? What kind of foundations did
they have? Are they being raised by one parent, two parents?
Speaker 5 (14:19):
You know?
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Are they in the philostercare system, Are they being raised
by their grandparents?
Speaker 5 (14:25):
You know?
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Did they come from an affluent part of the community.
They come from a less affluent part of the community.
So when we're talking about you know, as.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
You could, I just ask you one philosophical question that
I want to listen to or answer. What difference does
it make to the victim of crime as to who
has committed the crime against them? If somebody comes up
and beats me up, or beats you up, or someone
(14:56):
attacks one of your your family members, I don't really
care where that victim came from, to be honest with you,
and I'm probably cruel and hard hearted, but why not
focus a little more on the victim of crime? I
find that I find that missing sometimes in the analysis
(15:18):
that my friends in the Democratic Party provide. But go ahead,
I didn't mean to interrupt, just I.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Appreciate that that perspective. I just you know, certainly somebody
has been injured by somebody's misbehavior. I would be frustrated,
I would be disappointed. I'm not going to sit here
and say, however, that I'm not going to give them
somewhat of a benefit of what, you know, where are
(15:44):
they coming from, what's going on with them? And certainly
I would be disappointed that my son, my wife, one
of my family members was injured. But I'm not going
to just say, you know, I don't think I mean
and I do recognize too, having been a social worker
for twenty four years, that there are just some straight
(16:06):
out evil people in this world. I'm not denying that, okay,
but I don't know that everybody's evil, and I do
recognize that people make some really bad mistakes and cause
harm and hurt others. But I think, you know, we
should have some opportunity to have a second chance, now
(16:27):
you know, sixteen and eighteen second chances. I'm not so
sure where I feel on that one either, but I
do think we should find a way if it's possible.
And I do believe that we're talking about rehabilitation and
education with kids that have run a follow the law
at fifteen sixteen seventeen, that if we were to break
(16:48):
those cycles of misbehaving. Through education, through counseling, through rehabilitation,
we're hopefully going to make a difference and keep them
from continuing down that path and going into the adult system.
We're trying to avert that and avoid that. That's what
I'm thinking about.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
I understand. I think your focus is at a different location.
I mean, but with your analysis, and I respect your opinion,
but it seems to me we should have probably a
three or four tier system of justice, meaning if a
kid from an affluent family gets in trouble, no break whatsoever.
If a kid from a single parent family gets in trouble,
(17:29):
well we should make sure that he gets automatically twenty
percent of whatever time off, whatever time he or she
is sentenced to. I mean, you know, every I think
that's crazy, but that's that's my point of view, and
I'm not going to subject you to listeners here. I
think you've expressed expressed very clearly you have a big heart.
(17:53):
I wish I had his heart as big as yours.
But I disagree. I told you that earlier, and I'm
going to let you go, and I'm gonna wish you
happy Thanksgiving. If having expressed your opinions, and I'm going
to open it up to my phone calls for the
next half hour and give them a chance to comment
if they've if they've listened to us. And I think
(18:16):
the heart of the debate is what what we got
to get at. And I'm glad we had a civil
conversation tonight, and I hope we can have more.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Yeah, I'm always willing to come on and have a
conversation with you. You've always been very reasonable when we've
had our conversations, and I don't think you're co hotted.
I think we do see things a little bit differently.
But I just think continuing to put young people into
(18:47):
locked facilities isn't isn't fixing anything. It's not it's not
helping change the behavior. I'm not saying their behaviors are acceptable.
I'm saying that we have an opportunity to work on
making those changes. And in some kids and some adults,
you're not going to change them. I get that, but
when we can, I think we need to make the effort.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
To do so. All Right, Jim, oday gave you the
last word. Thanks very much. I appreciate it. We'll talk
again and again. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
Thanks to you.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Thank you, You're welcome.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Okay, have a great night. Okay, we get back. We
got the news coming up here. I'm going to open
up the phone lines. I think we have just made
it pretty clear. My priorities are with victims. My priorities
are not with criminals. Okay, different criminals. Everybody understands that
(19:39):
we all come from different backgrounds. Some are born with
silver spoons in their mouths, others are born in very
difficult circumstances. But sometimes the people who born with the
silver spoons in their mouths are the biggest screw ups.
Not always, and sometimes the kids who are born would
seem to have the longest shot are the most successful.
(20:02):
And I think that we do not focus on victims.
I talked tonight with a woman who am who I'm
made to, who I will talk to next week. I'll explain,
but I want to hear from you. Are you tired?
Who are you more concerned about? The victims? Are the
perpetrators of crime? And I realized that some of you
(20:24):
are probably more inclined to support what I'm saying. But
I think it's pretty clear we have downplayed in this
society for about fifty years victims of crime, and we've
had more and more victims of crime. We had two
members of the West Virginia National Guard shot tonight, ambushed
in Washington, d C. About two or three blocks from
(20:44):
the White House. Six one seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six, one seven, nine three, one ten thirty. Let's
light these phone lines up. I'm prepared to go beyond ten,
but I want to hear from as many of you
as possible. And we will talk about Thanksgiving later, I promise,
and we'll talk talk about politics as a side dish
at your Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow. But I want to talk
(21:05):
about do you care about victims of crime? Because I
do deeply. I do deeply. Any one of us could
become victimized, and I want people to care about me
if I'm in that set of circumstances. But I think
we forget victims of crime, and we always focus on
the background of the offender, and we try to bend
over back which to find ways to minimize the damage
(21:29):
that the offenders have done to our society and to
individuals within our society. Six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty,
bring it right back on Nightside right after the news
a little bit late, but we wanted to be fair
to Representative Jim O'Day and I appreciate him coming on tonight.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on WZ Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
I mentioned early in my conversation with Jim O'Day that
we once had the death penalty in Massachusetts. Then we
got rid of it. Federal government got rid of it.
Federal government brought the death penalty back. We approved a
constitutional amendment here voters, but the Supreme Judicial Court, in
their infinite wisdom, struck that down. They tried to pass
(22:18):
it through the legislature and by one vote it failed.
Everybody says, oh, you know, make sure they serve life
without parole. The death penalty is the easy way out,
and that was an interesting argument. But as soon as
the death penalty was gone, they worked on getting rid
of life without parole. And they've gotten rid of life
parole without parole in many cases for people under the
(22:42):
age now of eighteen. And now they want to move
up juvenile offenders beyond the age of eighteen to twenty one.
I mean, I don't think people's brains scientifically are fully
developed until probably they are thirty five forty. Maybe they're
never fully developed. But I think it's it's just another
easy way out to basically take all of our concern
(23:04):
away from the victims of a crime, the person who's raped,
the person who's murdered, the person who is pistol whipped,
the person who is run down and beaten up, and
the focus is on the offender. Our focus for forty
years has been in the wrong direction. Do I want
to be unfair to people?
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Know?
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Do I want to be fair to people? Of course
I do. Of course I do, because it could be
me and the criminal justice system. It could be remember
my family in the criminal justice system. However, however, we
have gone way too far in my opinion. Let's see
what people have to say. I'm going to go first
up to dawn in Portsmouth asume it's Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Hi, Dn,
(23:45):
how are you tonight, good Dan, Portsmorth, New Hampshire. Correct, Yes, yeah,
there is a Portsmouth, Rhode Island, but we have many
more listeners in Portsworth, New Hampshire. Go right ahead and
happy Thanksgiving to you.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:59):
And also.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
I don't believe that if a person's brain is fully
developed or mostly developed, why should we put these soldiers
at eighteen in all kinds of situations?
Speaker 2 (24:17):
Great point? Great point. Why should we allow people to
vote until their brain is fully developed? Why should we
allow kids to drive cars at the age of sixteen
if their brain isn't fully developed. I mean, I don't
think your brain has to be fully developed to understand
you don't kill people. You don't murder people, that you
(24:39):
don't rape women, that you don't assault elderly people, that
you don't engage in road rage. I mean, it's there's
a mindset, and Representative Odell is a good guy and
a good heart, but I think there's a mindset that
the focus is on we can somehow make things better
(24:59):
for the offender. I talked with a woman tonight who
you'll hear from next week. She was at an UH
at a conference. She's a she's a surgeon. She was
at a conference in Chicago, and she was simply walking
up a flight of stairs to get their rapid transit trained.
They call it the l out there or the or
the CTA. The Chicago Transit Authority guy turned around for
(25:23):
no reason at all and just smashed her in the face,
smashed her in the face for no reason whatsoever. And
when the police finally came, they asked her, do you
want to, you know, file charges, and she said, sure, yeah,
all file charges. The police never got back in touch
with her. They arrested the guy, never got back in
(25:44):
touch with her, and his cases disappeared. We have so
much sympathy for cold blooded criminals, criminals in this society.
We've forgotten about the rights of victims.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
You're right, you know, and.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
I don't know how we change that around unless we
find other political leaders, particularly here in New England. Now
New Hampshire is a little different than Massachusetts, but it's
kind of going in the Massachusetts direction, Dawn, if you
want to know the truth.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
Yeah, you're right. Yeh, you're right. It's going all over
the country.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
I think.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, well, there's still some states where people pay. And
of course there is a death penalty, as the Boston
bomber from the Boston Marathon in twenty thirteen now realizes.
But they're fighting that too. They fighted. The only criminal
who said, I'm going to drop my appeals. I want
(26:47):
the death penalty. Let me get me to the electric chair.
Was Timothy McVeigh, the guy that blew up the federal
building in Oklahoma City back in nineteen ninety five or
whatever year it was. Yeah, Terriblon, Don, please have a
great Thanksgiving. Thanks for calling in, and I hope you'll
(27:08):
continue to call more often.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
Okay, thank you, Dan.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
Thanks Don appreciate your call. We're going to take a break.
I got some open lines. Disappointed that I have any
open lines on this. I'm simply saying to you, you
got to as a society, we have to protect innocent people. Okay.
I want to be considerate of people who are in
(27:33):
the criminal justice system. I have worked as a journalist
to get people who were wrongfully convicted out of the
criminal justice system. So I do have a big heart.
I sort of downplayed the size of my heart, but
I have more of a heart for victims of crime
than I do for perpetrators of crime. And if we're
going to have a system that focuses on as my
(27:57):
good friend Jim ode Representative Odey said, on how someone
is brought up, how many parents they have, what the
circumstances are, what into what socioeconomic set of circumstances they're born?
Then then why don't we just say that, Hey, if
you're born in such a circumstance, let's carry it to
(28:17):
its logical extreme. Do what you want. We're not going
to penalize you. If you want to deal drugs, deal drugs.
If you want to engage in murder, engage in murder,
and just let us know that you know you came
from a tough set of circumstances. It is, I think, insane,
and it's been carried way too far, and someone has
to say it. I'm willing to say it. Six one seven, two, five,
(28:39):
four ten thirty six one seven nine three one ten thirty.
I will remind you that we are responsible for our actions,
and we have to accept responsibility for those actions. As
difficult as it is. When you park at a fire
hydrant and you get a ticket, you got to pay ticket. Okay,
(29:01):
it's no fun to pay the ticket. But guess what,
don't park at a fire hydrant. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
All right, let's get back to the phones again. I
know it's Thanksgiving, Eve, I'm here. I hope you're there.
Feel free. You know you have this this example in
Washington today two National Guard members were ambushed just blocks
from the White House. So I don't know anything about
(29:36):
this case other than what I read, but talk about
a brazen act of violence. Even the Mayor of Washington
has described it, according to the Associated Press, as a
targeted attack. I have no idea how old this person is.
I have no idea. The suspect is in custody, shot
(29:57):
and had wounds that they believe in not life threatening.
Both of the Guards members Guard members of fighting for
their lives. If you'd like to join the conversation here
six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven,
nine three one ten thirty. We will be changing topics
at the top of the hour. Unless you want to
talk about this one, Let's go to Mike in Plymouth.
Hey Mike, thanks for calling in. How are you tonight?
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Good Dan, how are you happy Thanksgiving?
Speaker 2 (30:22):
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, and thanks very much
for being there. You know again, I choose to work
on Thanksgiving me because I think it's just an important
night to work and I hope that there are people
out there like you, and I can't tell you much.
I appreciate your calling, your thanks.
Speaker 4 (30:37):
Well, I'm on my way home from work as well,
So more power to us.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Yeah, absolutely, and I wanted to.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
I just wanted to add a little perspective from that
of a defense attorney that work in this excellent For
over twenty years, I did not do superior court felony work.
I worked in the district courts down in the trenches, yep.
And I had the privilege of representing some the nicest
kids that were in the wrong place at the wrong
(31:03):
time or did something stupid. And I went to the
wall for those kids because I really believed that sometimes
they got taken advantage of, either by the police or
some other circumstances got them into a situation where they
just either made a bad mistake or they were caught
up in something that was bigger than them. And in
(31:25):
those cases, I went to the wall for those kids.
I had over thirty jury trials in twenty years. That's
not a lot in the district court, actually, but I
had my share of trials and I had a pretty
good record. I think I may have lost four or
five of those thirty. And the overwhelming perspective I can
bring to this is that most of the time the
(31:47):
clients that I went to the wall for most of
the time, they had a lot of family support and
they and they deserved, you know, to have their story
told in court. There are other cases where you couldn't
go to trial because the evidence was overwhelming against the client,
and in those situations, you try to make the best
(32:08):
deal that you could. And that's where I ran in
ran into a lot of clients that didn't want to
take responsibility for the actions and the situations that they
found themselves in. And I think every situation, every one
of these cases.
Speaker 6 (32:22):
Have to be looked at individual.
Speaker 4 (32:24):
There's no such thing as a cookie cutter disposition. In
a criminal case, you're talking about, you know, someone's liberty
being taken away. You have to look at everything individually.
But the overwhelming thing that I took away from my
practice was that the kids that had family support, particularly
male father figure or older brother or uncle or grandfather's support,
(32:47):
tended to do better as far as following my recommendations
and doing what we wanted to do. The kids that
didn't have any family support, particularly you know, father figures
or male figures in their lives, they wanted to do
things their own way and insisted on, you know, a
disposition that might not necessarily be in their best interest.
(33:08):
And I found that there was a lot of resistance
in certain cases for kids not wanting to take responsibility.
There's only so much you can do as a defense
attorney when when the police have you dead to right, No,
I understand.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
That, And by the way, I just want to quickly
comment on something you said, which with me is important,
is that there's there's sort of what's in the best
interest of the kid or the defendant, the particularly if
it's a juvenile defendant short term and long term. It
might be best for that kids short term to get
(33:40):
a quaff, get continues out of finding and go back
out in the street and do the same thing that night.
It may be in his or her interest to accept
the responsibility. Maybe you'll go on probation or maybe even
spend a little bit of time with some counseling, or
or they've been spend a little bit of time, depending
(34:01):
upon the age and the circumstances in prison or in jail.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
And so that's where I am. But what my concern
is that I just think that we have lost focus
as a society, not as the criminal defense bar because
as you and I both know, I'm a lawyer to
as we both know, our obligation is to make the
prosecution prove all the elements of the case beyond a
(34:28):
reasonable doubt. It's not up to us to you know,
basically push our client out there and say, well, yeah,
he actually did.
Speaker 4 (34:36):
We don't have to prove innocence.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
We don't have to prove The only time I had
to prove innocence was working on the FBI case where
we got the four men out of prison who had
been wrongfully and intentionally convicted by corrupt agents of the FBI.
But put that aside, and the point that I'm trying
to make is that at the legislature there's a lot
of defense lawyers with all due respected defense lawyers, and
(35:00):
they're looking for as much elbow room as possible to
the clients. And I'm not sure it's good for society.
I'm not even sure if it's best for their clients exactly.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
This proposed legislation is a function of the blue Democratic
run state legislature that we have in the state. This
law would never fly in Florida or Alabama or someplace
like that. You know, this is this is the culture
that we live in at the state House. Uh, you know,
they want to you know, uh, avail themselves as many
(35:32):
outs you know, for defendants as possible, and they think
that I get it. There's a certain amount of science
that says that the juvenile, a juvenile's brain takes longer,
a long time to develop, and they don't always make
the best decisions at certain ages.
Speaker 6 (35:48):
And that's why you do have to look at these
cases individually.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
You know.
Speaker 4 (35:52):
But uh, there's also the argument to be made that
every kid whose brain isn't fully developed does and make
go out and commit a violent crime. And those that do,
a lot of them have been in the system for
a while and have been given other chances exactly, and
if I might get to them in adult court.
Speaker 6 (36:10):
By the time I get to these kids in adult court,
they've had a few chances in the juvenile system, but
they start with a clean record in the adult court.
Speaker 4 (36:19):
And uh that that juvenile record can't be used against them,
but it factors into the fact that they realized, you know,
they might be able to get away with something again
because they did in the juvenile system.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
Got Mike. There should be both defense lawyers like you
who you know who who represent their clients with vigor
and with passion, but also understand that that life is
going to be impacted as to what advice you give them.
And it sounds to me like you gave your clients
great advice. Mike. I'm up against it. I got to
just about enough time to wish you a happy Thanksgiving
(36:50):
to you and yours, and hope you continue to listen
and call night Side any time I will.
Speaker 4 (36:54):
Dan, thank you for taking a call.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
You're very welcome. All right, we're done for this. We're
going to get back to you right after the ten
o'clock news with a different topic. We'll be back right
after the tent
It's Night Side with Denay on WVS Boston's news radio fan.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Welcome back everyone. We're going to talk a little bit
about crime and punishment in Massachusetts. Callwealth of Massachusetts for many,
many years had capital punishment available in the judicial system.
Capital punishment was first ruled to be unconstitutional as cruel
and unusual punishment by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court. Federal
(00:29):
US Supreme Court outlawed capital punishment in the Firman versus
Georgia case back in nineteen seventy two. It was reinstated,
and there is the federal death penalty does exist, as
certainly Boston Bomber Number two knows. But in terms of
at the state level, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court for
a long time has been on record against capital punishment.
(00:53):
It's been a long and winding road in which was
actually restored by the legendgislature was struck down again by
the State Supreme Court, and then in nineteen ninety seven,
by the margin of one vote, a restoration of capital
punishment in Massachusetts was defeated. It was supported then by
(01:13):
Governor Paul Salucci. Former governorm At Romney also attempted to
bring it back without success, So we don't have capital
punishment in Massachusetts. Many people when they went after and
have argued against capital punishment that said, well, you know,
capital punishment, it was the easy way out. What murderers
(01:34):
really fear is life without parole sentence. Well, that has
been taken care of a little bit by the State
Supreme Court here finding that if you're under the age
of eighteen and you've been convicted capital for an offense,
(01:55):
that that gives you life in life without parole. The
possibility at parole that has been repealed by the State
Supreme Court in a case called Mattis. We can get
into some of the specifics. But now now there's another
piece of legislation that is working its way through the
courts right not to the course to the legislature and
(02:18):
with us A State Representative Jim O'Day of West Boyleston,
He and State Reversient of Many Cruz of Salem, Massachusetts,
introduced this bill House in nineteen twenty three to raise
the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from eighteen to twenty
one years of age. First of all, I want to
welcome Representative oday and wish you in advance a happy
(02:40):
Thanksgiving tomorrow with you and yours.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
How are you tonight, Jim, well doing okay? Thank you
in the same to you, Happy Thanksgiving. I'm happy to
be here this evening. Appreciate the opportunity.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, So what would this in layman's terms? What would
this bill which has been reduced before, but it is
certainly alive at this point. Give us a little sense
of one what the bill would do if passed, and
where it stands at this point in the legislative process.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Joe, and I appreciated that you recognize my colleague Rep. Cruise,
but also a seen of a Creyton, Brendan Creighton from
Lynn who also is a Senate sponsor of this. Okay,
So yeah, So the bill actually would gradually raise the
age of juvenile jurisdiction to include eighteen nineteen twenty year olds,
(03:37):
And it wouldn't happen on the first year, say the
bill was passed at the end of this year. Wouldn't
go immediately to twenty including all eighteen nineteen twenty year olds.
It would would occur over a period around five years.
And I think probably that has some ability for continued
negotiations with what kind of a timeframe we might be
(03:59):
looking at, uh. Presently, the bill has been heard within
the last couple of weeks. It was heard in the
Joint Committee and the Judiciary, and they'll now do some
of their their work on this bill to see, you know,
what's happening with it, what sort of remarks have come
(04:20):
in since the actual testimony occurred, some in favor, some
against the suspect, and hopefully we will get a favorable
report coming out of that committee and we'll see where
it goes beyond there. As you mentioned, the bill has
been around a little bit. It was some activity with
(04:41):
the bill at the tail end.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
Of last year.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
The Senate actually had put it into the Economic Development Bill,
and unfortunately, at the time of the Conference Committee that
did not remain within the Economic Development buil, so that
would have only included eighteen year olds as it was
(05:04):
written in the Economic Development Bill and the Conference Committee.
But so we go through the process again and we're
hopeful that we can continue to build and get some
additional support and we'll see where we wind up here
at the end of the session.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Okay, So, from a practical point of view, if in
layman's language, and I realized that the procedural trek is
also always something that the legislators focus on, but from
a proceed from just forget from a procedural point of view,
but from a substantive point of view. If this bill
(05:42):
were to pass, what's the practical impact. My understanding is
that if it were to pass in you know, in
the form that I believe it's proposed, in, people who
commit crimes at the ages of nineteen and twenty and
all the way up say, till till the day they
turned twenty one would no longer be in the adult
(06:05):
criminal justice system. They would be automatically dealt with in
the juvenile justice system, which is very different. I mean the.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Justice I talked about crimes. That's certainly a broad spectrum,
right that could go from you know, someone being charged
with murder, in which this particular peace of legislation really
does not let anyone, so to speak, off the hooked
up up to including you know, someone is stealing a car.
(06:42):
So you know, there are areas of this bill that
do not lose sight of heinous crimes for a second
degree murder, youthful offenders under those under those charges would
still be eligible. That's the right phrase to be considered
you know, having community an adult crime and could still
(07:06):
be you know, charged with and sentenced under first and
second degree murder. So if I could don cases.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Yeah, Jim, just again, I know there's a lot here,
and I want to I want to be fair on
this one. So obvious certain felonies that would not apply
here and and there would be no relief granted to
a juvenile suspect, such as murder manslaughter? Uh are those
(07:41):
specifically exempted? Or to look at it another way, what
what crimes? I know that, and I want to get
into the underlying reason, which is the development of the brain,
which we will get to, I promise. I'm just trying
to understand. Uh, it's if it's not all crimes for
you know, people who are eighteen, nineteen, and twenty, if
(08:06):
some of them statutorily are going to stay within the
adult system. If you could list whatever those crimes are
or give me a sense of those crimes, what I'm
concerned about is if this passes, does it then is
it up to the judges to rule on every specific case?
(08:27):
And as a defense lawyer, can I say, well, my
guy is accused of murder, but it's not a real murder,
and we think that the best it is is an
involuntary manslaughter, and therefore we want out of the adult
criminal justice system. We make a motion to go into
the juvenile system. And is that then up to a
(08:49):
judge or statutorily does it designate what's in and what's out?
If you know?
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Yeah, so, certainly for us in second degree murder cases,
that could, regardless of the age, even if it was
a fourteen year old or a thirteen year old, could
be charged as a youthful offender, which which would put
(09:16):
them on track to be charged as an adult, you know,
whether adult charges.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
So when you say it could be, I don't want
to get hung up on words you say could be.
Is there a presumption that somebody who is under the
age of twenty one is assumed that they are going
to go into the criminal justice system, or is it
(09:44):
assumed they would go into the juvenile justice system if
this passed, and then on motion to a judge, they
could be moved from one to the other. I'm just
when you say that could be, that's what that's what
I'm getting a little hung up on it, and I
don't want to be hung up on it.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Yeah, So teens as young as fourteen year olds right,
chadds Birus. The second degree murder would automatically be prosecuted,
automatically be prosecuted as adults in superior court and subject
to adult sentences. Raise the age does not change the
(10:21):
current statute regarding those offenses, those offenses that are currently
on the books. This bill would not change those statutes.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
So murder cases, what about rape cases.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
There's a little so yes and no with the rape cases.
If there's certain certain results of power and bodily harm
cause within that particular rape case, and that's getting a
little bit more into the weeds relative to that, and
(10:57):
my wherewithal to speak reply to that fair enough. There
is some flexibility with a rape case, for sure.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Okay, let's do this. Let's take up on that point.
Let's just take a break. We've got to do a
couple of commercials, and we'll come back and we'll talk
a little bit more about the rationale behind the bill.
And obviously, if rape is sort of a marginal call,
there must be other cases less serious than rape, but
(11:30):
still serious cases now which automatically would be felonies that
the purpose of the law would be to put them
into the juvenile system. Can we agree on that?
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Fair enough? Yeah, fair enough. We'll get we will get
to the whole question of why the necessity of looking
at people between the ages of eighteen and twenty one
on some crimes. Differently with my guest, STAY Representative Jim O'Day,
who is from Worcester County and he is one of
the primary sponsors of this piece of legislation that he's
(12:04):
actually from West Boyleston, but he represents more than just
West Boylston. We'll get that piece of information from him
as well. Back on Nightside right after this, you're on.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Night Side with Dan Ray on w b Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Stay Representative Jim O'Davis with me, Jim, I know you're
from West Boyleston, but I always like to give members
of the legislation and opportunity to let folks know from
what community, what communities they represent. So if they're listening tonight,
what what communities do you represent besides your hometown of Boylston.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Yeah, so I represent the town of West Boylston and
then the Northern Session of the City of Worcester.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
All right, Okay, good enough people they would know, So
let's talk about the underlying concern here. You you have
not picked numbers out of the ear. You're concerned about
with the development of the brain. I guess the Cerebral
Court text gets kind of complicated here, But basically you're
(13:04):
saying that kids, people who are eighteen, nineteen, and twenty
the brain hasn't fully developed. Is that, and that therefore
we can't hold them to a to a criminal justice
standard of adults. It sounds to me like, is what
you're saying. If I've mis characterized what this bill is
all about, please correct me.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
No, that's pretty accurate, I would say. However, that's not
only I that says that, right, There's tons and tons
of research out there that demonstrates that young folks brains
develop up until the mid twenties. So it's not just
young folks, it's all of us who have come through
you know, the aging process. That's what the data shows us.
(13:45):
But I think a piece of what isn't being spoken
about a little bit too, is you know, a lot
of youth, you know a lot of our youth that
find themselves making you know, silly mistakes and that you know,
running a foul of the law. Just so so many
other conditions that we don't I really think we don't speak.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Enough about you know, you know, what type of.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Environment do they come from? What kind of foundations did
they have? Are they being raised by one parent, two parents?
Speaker 5 (14:19):
You know?
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Are they in the philostercare system, Are they being raised
by their grandparents?
Speaker 5 (14:25):
You know?
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Did they come from an affluent part of the community.
They come from a less affluent part of the community.
So when we're talking about you know, as.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
You could, I just ask you one philosophical question that
I want to listen to or answer. What difference does
it make to the victim of crime as to who
has committed the crime against them? If somebody comes up
and beats me up, or beats you up, or someone
(14:56):
attacks one of your your family members, I don't really
care where that victim came from, to be honest with you,
and I'm probably cruel and hard hearted, but why not
focus a little more on the victim of crime? I
find that I find that missing sometimes in the analysis
(15:18):
that my friends in the Democratic Party provide. But go ahead,
I didn't mean to interrupt, just I.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Appreciate that that perspective. I just you know, certainly somebody
has been injured by somebody's misbehavior. I would be frustrated,
I would be disappointed. I'm not going to sit here
and say, however, that I'm not going to give them
somewhat of a benefit of what, you know, where are
(15:44):
they coming from, what's going on with them? And certainly
I would be disappointed that my son, my wife, one
of my family members was injured. But I'm not going
to just say, you know, I don't think I mean
and I do recognize too, having been a social worker
for twenty four years, that there are just some straight
(16:06):
out evil people in this world. I'm not denying that, okay,
but I don't know that everybody's evil, and I do
recognize that people make some really bad mistakes and cause
harm and hurt others. But I think, you know, we
should have some opportunity to have a second chance, now
(16:27):
you know, sixteen and eighteen second chances. I'm not so
sure where I feel on that one either, but I
do think we should find a way if it's possible.
And I do believe that we're talking about rehabilitation and
education with kids that have run a follow the law
at fifteen sixteen seventeen, that if we were to break
(16:48):
those cycles of misbehaving. Through education, through counseling, through rehabilitation,
we're hopefully going to make a difference and keep them
from continuing down that path and going into the adult system.
We're trying to avert that and avoid that. That's what
I'm thinking about.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
I understand. I think your focus is at a different location.
I mean, but with your analysis, and I respect your opinion,
but it seems to me we should have probably a
three or four tier system of justice, meaning if a
kid from an affluent family gets in trouble, no break whatsoever.
If a kid from a single parent family gets in trouble,
(17:29):
well we should make sure that he gets automatically twenty
percent of whatever time off, whatever time he or she
is sentenced to. I mean, you know, every I think
that's crazy, but that's that's my point of view, and
I'm not going to subject you to listeners here. I
think you've expressed expressed very clearly you have a big heart.
(17:53):
I wish I had his heart as big as yours.
But I disagree. I told you that earlier, and I'm
going to let you go, and I'm gonna wish you
happy Thanksgiving. If having expressed your opinions, and I'm going
to open it up to my phone calls for the
next half hour and give them a chance to comment
if they've if they've listened to us. And I think
(18:16):
the heart of the debate is what what we got
to get at. And I'm glad we had a civil
conversation tonight, and I hope we can have more.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Yeah, I'm always willing to come on and have a
conversation with you. You've always been very reasonable when we've
had our conversations, and I don't think you're co hotted.
I think we do see things a little bit differently.
But I just think continuing to put young people into
(18:47):
locked facilities isn't isn't fixing anything. It's not it's not
helping change the behavior. I'm not saying their behaviors are acceptable.
I'm saying that we have an opportunity to work on
making those changes. And in some kids and some adults,
you're not going to change them. I get that, but
when we can, I think we need to make the effort.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
To do so. All Right, Jim, oday gave you the
last word. Thanks very much. I appreciate it. We'll talk
again and again. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
Thanks to you.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Thank you, You're welcome.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Okay, have a great night. Okay, we get back. We
got the news coming up here. I'm going to open
up the phone lines. I think we have just made
it pretty clear. My priorities are with victims. My priorities
are not with criminals. Okay, different criminals. Everybody understands that
(19:39):
we all come from different backgrounds. Some are born with
silver spoons in their mouths, others are born in very
difficult circumstances. But sometimes the people who born with the
silver spoons in their mouths are the biggest screw ups.
Not always, and sometimes the kids who are born would
seem to have the longest shot are the most successful.
(20:02):
And I think that we do not focus on victims.
I talked tonight with a woman who am who I'm
made to, who I will talk to next week. I'll explain,
but I want to hear from you. Are you tired?
Who are you more concerned about? The victims? Are the
perpetrators of crime? And I realized that some of you
(20:24):
are probably more inclined to support what I'm saying. But
I think it's pretty clear we have downplayed in this
society for about fifty years victims of crime, and we've
had more and more victims of crime. We had two
members of the West Virginia National Guard shot tonight, ambushed
in Washington, d C. About two or three blocks from
(20:44):
the White House. Six one seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six, one seven, nine three, one ten thirty. Let's
light these phone lines up. I'm prepared to go beyond ten,
but I want to hear from as many of you
as possible. And we will talk about Thanksgiving later, I promise,
and we'll talk talk about politics as a side dish
at your Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow. But I want to talk
(21:05):
about do you care about victims of crime? Because I
do deeply. I do deeply. Any one of us could
become victimized, and I want people to care about me
if I'm in that set of circumstances. But I think
we forget victims of crime, and we always focus on
the background of the offender, and we try to bend
over back which to find ways to minimize the damage
(21:29):
that the offenders have done to our society and to
individuals within our society. Six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty,
bring it right back on Nightside right after the news
a little bit late, but we wanted to be fair
to Representative Jim O'Day and I appreciate him coming on tonight.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on WZ Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
I mentioned early in my conversation with Jim O'Day that
we once had the death penalty in Massachusetts. Then we
got rid of it. Federal government got rid of it.
Federal government brought the death penalty back. We approved a
constitutional amendment here voters, but the Supreme Judicial Court, in
their infinite wisdom, struck that down. They tried to pass
(22:18):
it through the legislature and by one vote it failed.
Everybody says, oh, you know, make sure they serve life
without parole. The death penalty is the easy way out,
and that was an interesting argument. But as soon as
the death penalty was gone, they worked on getting rid
of life without parole. And they've gotten rid of life
parole without parole in many cases for people under the
(22:42):
age now of eighteen. And now they want to move
up juvenile offenders beyond the age of eighteen to twenty one.
I mean, I don't think people's brains scientifically are fully
developed until probably they are thirty five forty. Maybe they're
never fully developed. But I think it's it's just another
easy way out to basically take all of our concern
(23:04):
away from the victims of a crime, the person who's raped,
the person who's murdered, the person who is pistol whipped,
the person who is run down and beaten up, and
the focus is on the offender. Our focus for forty
years has been in the wrong direction. Do I want
to be unfair to people?
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Know?
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Do I want to be fair to people? Of course
I do. Of course I do, because it could be
me and the criminal justice system. It could be remember
my family in the criminal justice system. However, however, we
have gone way too far in my opinion. Let's see
what people have to say. I'm going to go first
up to dawn in Portsmouth asume it's Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Hi, Dn,
(23:45):
how are you tonight, good Dan, Portsmorth, New Hampshire. Correct, Yes, yeah,
there is a Portsmouth, Rhode Island, but we have many
more listeners in Portsworth, New Hampshire. Go right ahead and
happy Thanksgiving to you.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:59):
And also.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
I don't believe that if a person's brain is fully
developed or mostly developed, why should we put these soldiers
at eighteen in all kinds of situations?
Speaker 2 (24:17):
Great point? Great point. Why should we allow people to
vote until their brain is fully developed? Why should we
allow kids to drive cars at the age of sixteen
if their brain isn't fully developed. I mean, I don't
think your brain has to be fully developed to understand
you don't kill people. You don't murder people, that you
(24:39):
don't rape women, that you don't assault elderly people, that
you don't engage in road rage. I mean, it's there's
a mindset, and Representative Odell is a good guy and
a good heart, but I think there's a mindset that
the focus is on we can somehow make things better
(24:59):
for the offender. I talked with a woman tonight who
you'll hear from next week. She was at an UH
at a conference. She's a she's a surgeon. She was
at a conference in Chicago, and she was simply walking
up a flight of stairs to get their rapid transit trained.
They call it the l out there or the or
the CTA. The Chicago Transit Authority guy turned around for
(25:23):
no reason at all and just smashed her in the face,
smashed her in the face for no reason whatsoever. And
when the police finally came, they asked her, do you
want to, you know, file charges, and she said, sure, yeah,
all file charges. The police never got back in touch
with her. They arrested the guy, never got back in
(25:44):
touch with her, and his cases disappeared. We have so
much sympathy for cold blooded criminals, criminals in this society.
We've forgotten about the rights of victims.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
You're right, you know, and.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
I don't know how we change that around unless we
find other political leaders, particularly here in New England. Now
New Hampshire is a little different than Massachusetts, but it's
kind of going in the Massachusetts direction, Dawn, if you
want to know the truth.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
Yeah, you're right. Yeh, you're right. It's going all over
the country.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
I think.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, well, there's still some states where people pay. And
of course there is a death penalty, as the Boston
bomber from the Boston Marathon in twenty thirteen now realizes.
But they're fighting that too. They fighted. The only criminal
who said, I'm going to drop my appeals. I want
(26:47):
the death penalty. Let me get me to the electric chair.
Was Timothy McVeigh, the guy that blew up the federal
building in Oklahoma City back in nineteen ninety five or
whatever year it was. Yeah, Terriblon, Don, please have a
great Thanksgiving. Thanks for calling in, and I hope you'll
(27:08):
continue to call more often.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
Okay, thank you, Dan.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
Thanks Don appreciate your call. We're going to take a break.
I got some open lines. Disappointed that I have any
open lines on this. I'm simply saying to you, you
got to as a society, we have to protect innocent people. Okay.
I want to be considerate of people who are in
(27:33):
the criminal justice system. I have worked as a journalist
to get people who were wrongfully convicted out of the
criminal justice system. So I do have a big heart.
I sort of downplayed the size of my heart, but
I have more of a heart for victims of crime
than I do for perpetrators of crime. And if we're
going to have a system that focuses on as my
(27:57):
good friend Jim ode Representative Odey said, on how someone
is brought up, how many parents they have, what the
circumstances are, what into what socioeconomic set of circumstances they're born?
Then then why don't we just say that, Hey, if
you're born in such a circumstance, let's carry it to
(28:17):
its logical extreme. Do what you want. We're not going
to penalize you. If you want to deal drugs, deal drugs.
If you want to engage in murder, engage in murder,
and just let us know that you know you came
from a tough set of circumstances. It is, I think, insane,
and it's been carried way too far, and someone has
to say it. I'm willing to say it. Six one seven, two, five,
(28:39):
four ten thirty six one seven nine three one ten thirty.
I will remind you that we are responsible for our actions,
and we have to accept responsibility for those actions. As
difficult as it is. When you park at a fire
hydrant and you get a ticket, you got to pay ticket. Okay,
(29:01):
it's no fun to pay the ticket. But guess what,
don't park at a fire hydrant. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
All right, let's get back to the phones again. I
know it's Thanksgiving, Eve, I'm here. I hope you're there.
Feel free. You know you have this this example in
Washington today two National Guard members were ambushed just blocks
from the White House. So I don't know anything about
(29:36):
this case other than what I read, but talk about
a brazen act of violence. Even the Mayor of Washington
has described it, according to the Associated Press, as a
targeted attack. I have no idea how old this person is.
I have no idea. The suspect is in custody, shot
(29:57):
and had wounds that they believe in not life threatening.
Both of the Guards members Guard members of fighting for
their lives. If you'd like to join the conversation here
six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven,
nine three one ten thirty. We will be changing topics
at the top of the hour. Unless you want to
talk about this one, Let's go to Mike in Plymouth.
Hey Mike, thanks for calling in. How are you tonight?
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Good Dan, how are you happy Thanksgiving?
Speaker 2 (30:22):
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, and thanks very much
for being there. You know again, I choose to work
on Thanksgiving me because I think it's just an important
night to work and I hope that there are people
out there like you, and I can't tell you much.
I appreciate your calling, your thanks.
Speaker 4 (30:37):
Well, I'm on my way home from work as well,
So more power to us.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Yeah, absolutely, and I wanted to.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
I just wanted to add a little perspective from that
of a defense attorney that work in this excellent For
over twenty years, I did not do superior court felony work.
I worked in the district courts down in the trenches, yep.
And I had the privilege of representing some the nicest
kids that were in the wrong place at the wrong
(31:03):
time or did something stupid. And I went to the
wall for those kids because I really believed that sometimes
they got taken advantage of, either by the police or
some other circumstances got them into a situation where they
just either made a bad mistake or they were caught
up in something that was bigger than them. And in
(31:25):
those cases, I went to the wall for those kids.
I had over thirty jury trials in twenty years. That's
not a lot in the district court, actually, but I
had my share of trials and I had a pretty
good record. I think I may have lost four or
five of those thirty. And the overwhelming perspective I can
bring to this is that most of the time the
(31:47):
clients that I went to the wall for most of
the time, they had a lot of family support and
they and they deserved, you know, to have their story
told in court. There are other cases where you couldn't
go to trial because the evidence was overwhelming against the client,
and in those situations, you try to make the best
(32:08):
deal that you could. And that's where I ran in
ran into a lot of clients that didn't want to
take responsibility for the actions and the situations that they
found themselves in. And I think every situation, every one
of these cases.
Speaker 6 (32:22):
Have to be looked at individual.
Speaker 4 (32:24):
There's no such thing as a cookie cutter disposition. In
a criminal case, you're talking about, you know, someone's liberty
being taken away. You have to look at everything individually.
But the overwhelming thing that I took away from my
practice was that the kids that had family support, particularly
male father figure or older brother or uncle or grandfather's support,
(32:47):
tended to do better as far as following my recommendations
and doing what we wanted to do. The kids that
didn't have any family support, particularly you know, father figures
or male figures in their lives, they wanted to do
things their own way and insisted on, you know, a
disposition that might not necessarily be in their best interest.
(33:08):
And I found that there was a lot of resistance
in certain cases for kids not wanting to take responsibility.
There's only so much you can do as a defense
attorney when when the police have you dead to right, No,
I understand.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
That, And by the way, I just want to quickly
comment on something you said, which with me is important,
is that there's there's sort of what's in the best
interest of the kid or the defendant, the particularly if
it's a juvenile defendant short term and long term. It
might be best for that kids short term to get
(33:40):
a quaff, get continues out of finding and go back
out in the street and do the same thing that night.
It may be in his or her interest to accept
the responsibility. Maybe you'll go on probation or maybe even
spend a little bit of time with some counseling, or
or they've been spend a little bit of time, depending
(34:01):
upon the age and the circumstances in prison or in jail.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
And so that's where I am. But what my concern
is that I just think that we have lost focus
as a society, not as the criminal defense bar because
as you and I both know, I'm a lawyer to
as we both know, our obligation is to make the
prosecution prove all the elements of the case beyond a
(34:28):
reasonable doubt. It's not up to us to you know,
basically push our client out there and say, well, yeah,
he actually did.
Speaker 4 (34:36):
We don't have to prove innocence.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
We don't have to prove The only time I had
to prove innocence was working on the FBI case where
we got the four men out of prison who had
been wrongfully and intentionally convicted by corrupt agents of the FBI.
But put that aside, and the point that I'm trying
to make is that at the legislature there's a lot
of defense lawyers with all due respected defense lawyers, and
(35:00):
they're looking for as much elbow room as possible to
the clients. And I'm not sure it's good for society.
I'm not even sure if it's best for their clients exactly.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
This proposed legislation is a function of the blue Democratic
run state legislature that we have in the state. This
law would never fly in Florida or Alabama or someplace
like that. You know, this is this is the culture
that we live in at the state House. Uh, you know,
they want to you know, uh, avail themselves as many
(35:32):
outs you know, for defendants as possible, and they think
that I get it. There's a certain amount of science
that says that the juvenile, a juvenile's brain takes longer,
a long time to develop, and they don't always make
the best decisions at certain ages.
Speaker 6 (35:48):
And that's why you do have to look at these
cases individually.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
You know.
Speaker 4 (35:52):
But uh, there's also the argument to be made that
every kid whose brain isn't fully developed does and make
go out and commit a violent crime. And those that do,
a lot of them have been in the system for
a while and have been given other chances exactly, and
if I might get to them in adult court.
Speaker 6 (36:10):
By the time I get to these kids in adult court,
they've had a few chances in the juvenile system, but
they start with a clean record in the adult court.
Speaker 4 (36:19):
And uh that that juvenile record can't be used against them,
but it factors into the fact that they realized, you know,
they might be able to get away with something again
because they did in the juvenile system.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
Got Mike. There should be both defense lawyers like you
who you know who who represent their clients with vigor
and with passion, but also understand that that life is
going to be impacted as to what advice you give them.
And it sounds to me like you gave your clients
great advice. Mike. I'm up against it. I got to
just about enough time to wish you a happy Thanksgiving
(36:50):
to you and yours, and hope you continue to listen
and call night Side any time I will.
Speaker 4 (36:54):
Dan, thank you for taking a call.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
You're very welcome. All right, we're done for this. We're
going to get back to you right after the ten
o'clock news with a different topic. We'll be back right
after the tent
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.