April 25, 2025 • 41 mins
There is a legislative effort on Beacon Hill to give people serving life sentences the chance at a parole hearing. The bill would eliminate life sentences without the possibility of parole, by allowing incarcerated people the opportunity to have a parole hearing after 25 years of their sentence. Do you support that idea? Why or why not?
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray w BZY Constance Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Nor Griffith, thanks very much. Trevian Henderson is a stud
with Ohio State. He is a player, and my prediction
is that he will be the number one or two
running back for the Patriots this year. Those have done
well so far on their draft choices. I think Henderson's
the best pick of the second rod. I'm surprised he
lasted that long anyway. Always good to hear from Al
(00:28):
Griffith here on a Friday night. We're a little bit
after ten o'clock now and we're continuing on conversation and
reacting to a piece of legislation that has been filed
up on Beacon Hill. I certainly hope it doesn't pass.
My friend Harvey Silverglate and I are in disagreement on this,
but we had with us last hour. Dan Delaney. He
(00:49):
is a lobbyist up there, the Daniel Delaney of the
Delaney Policy Group, and he answered questions honestly and straightforward,
which is great. He and I. He knew that he
would that I would disagree with him. I think it's
crazy to eliminate life without parole again. We eliminated the
death penalty based upon the argument that, well, you know,
(01:11):
if you unless you're absolutely sure, and I've tried to
narrow my view of the death penalty on it. I
would still support a death penalty if it's without a
scentilla of doubt. And I'm talking about something like the
Boston bombers, where there are aggravating circumstances. Boston bombers, the
(01:31):
Boston bomber number two, which is a perfect characterization of
the Boston bomber. We don't use his name, we just
call him number two, which he is. He has now
lived on the public dole from for whoever they came
here from, Dagaistan, god knows. But he's been incarcerated for
twelve years. I say that it's time for him to
(01:53):
be disposed of because again, there is no sintilla of
doubt of what he did, and there are no mitigating circumstances.
And there are some significant aggravating circumstances in terms of
the number of people who they killed, the innocent people
who were there just to watch the marathon on April fifteen,
twenty thirteen. But we're not talking about that. What they're
talking about now is getting rid of life without parole
(02:16):
because back they're twenty years ago, they were saying.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, you know, these inmates, they're really afraid of life
without parole. They you know, they want the death penalty,
and they in fact, they all.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Try to avoid the death penalty. But that's neither hear
nor there. So it was used as a lever leverage
to eliminate the death penalty in Massachusetts, and now it's
being used to eliminate life without parole. And the toughest
sentence would be twenty five years with the possibility parole,
which of course means the family would have to go
(02:52):
to if they chose to the parole board hearings, they
would have to relive every twenty five years, and maybe
more often, because if you get a parle and you're
denying at twenty five, maybe they'll come. These guys have
nothing else to do. A file again, Let me get
a ride, Let me get a ride to the prole board.
I just tell you this, the progressives in Massachusetts are
(03:16):
running the state, and if they ran the state, this
is the way they would like to run the state
in Massachusetts. And my guest made the point, which is legitimate,
that deterrence, punishment, public safety well, they took away to Terrance.
In terms of the death penalty across the board, that's
number one, and then in terms of punishment. Now, what
(03:38):
they're saying is it's conceivable that someone could be somehow
restored after twenty five years. I don't think so. They
didn't give the person who they killed an didn't say
that the look, I'll be back and I'll kill you
in twenty five years, but you got twenty five years
left to live. Public safety, keep them locked up. Let's
go back to the call is the only will we
(04:00):
have one line at six one seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty and one line at six one seven. Gonna
go to Jim. Jim, you were next on night side.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Welcome and thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Are you I'm doing great, Jim. What's your take on this?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, I've called in about this before, but I'll just
remind you the reason why you have to have l
WOP or the death penalty is because, and you already
said this, but a lot of these depraved people are
mobbed up with other deveaved people, and if they think
that there's any chance whatsoever that doing more crime or
(04:37):
killing more people will get their friend released early then
they will do just exactly that. So there has to
be certain people.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Give me an example of that. Give me an example.
I don't follow that, Jim. So so some you know,
some guy is in prison, uh life without parole.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Dan want gangs?
Speaker 2 (05:02):
I get it.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
Gangs they're connected, Dan, they don't. They're not just like oh,
our guy went off to prison. They stay connected in
the joint.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
So if they have the possibility of parole, how how's
that going to lead to another murder? That's what I'm
confused about.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
No extortion.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I still don't understand that. Jim, explain it to me
so I can get it. I just I'm not following
my fault.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
This is another This is another example of the same
type of activity. But these uh South American gangs, if
there's a concert down in Mexico and they don't want
it to happen, they'll just call and a level of
threat and then people know that they follow through on
their threats, so then they can they can cause things
(05:52):
to not happen and things to happen. But if if
everybody knows that there's that, no matter what they do,
they're not to be able to affect any change in
that area. Then they won't do it. But if there's
a possibility that there would they will affect change, then
they will do just about anything too.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
No. But but I'm saying, if let's say there is
someone who's coming up on a parole hearing after twenty
five years, I'm opposed to this because certain crimes murdering
the first degree. You know, there's no reason to change
that at this point. But let's assume they change it.
Are you suggesting that then people are going to threaten
parole officers or family members. Don't testify against my friend
(06:35):
who's coming up for parole after having killed your family members.
That is that the point you're trying to make.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
I don't know. I don't know exactly how they would
do it or how exactly they do it. All I
know there are certain people that are absolutely ruthless, and
if they think they could do something to get their
friend out earlier, then they will do that.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Okay, I think I would agree with you. There are
very bad people, and there are people I know who
extort money from people, and they will they can say
to someone in some of these countries, you're not going
to have a concert, because I get that. But I
didn't understand harves Will related to this. Thanks Jim, have
a great weekend. We will continue with our conversations. The
only line open right now is six one seven, nine three, one,
(07:19):
ten thirty. There were two lines there, so don't break
your knuckles or your fingernails dialing six one, seven, two,
five four ten thirty. Those lines are full. Six one seven,
nine three one ten thirty. Is there anyone out there
who thinks that the idea of getting rid of life
without parole for murder in the first degree and potentially
some other crimes. There's a there's a crime out of
(07:41):
Norway that was brought to my attention today. There was
a guy who killed I think it was eighty five
school kids at a camp in Norway. And this guy,
I guess, is now parole eligible. That's I got to
look it up during the break here. But we always
have these these The progressors will say, well, in Europe
they don't treat people in prison as harshly as I
(08:03):
don't care. But there's this case in Europe, which again
has no application to us. But the guy killed eighty
five kids or something like that, some bizarre number at
a summer camp and he theoretically has a right to
parole hearings back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
By the way, as I said, I talked about this
Norwegian guy. His name is Anders Brevic. He killed in
a car bombing in Oslo in July of twenty eleven,
eight people in a car bomb. Then he went to
a summer camp and killed sixty nine kids in a
summer camp. So he killed in total seventy seven people.
(08:52):
This is in Norway, a much more enlightened country than ours.
He was jailed from maximum of twenty one years, which
means he will be released as I read this story
in twenty thirty two, that's like what eight years from
(09:14):
seven years from now. So he applied in twenty twenty
two for parole. They decided that he's still crazy, he's
a dangerous guy, and they kept him. But oh yeah,
when he showed up he renounced violence. But he gave
(09:34):
Nazi salutes in the opening day of the hearing. But
of course you'll have some folks here who are going
to say, oh, yeah, you know, we should have a
criminal justice system more like Norway or Sweden or Denmark
or Germany or whatever. It's insane. And here in Massachusetts
you have the progressives who never stop. They are like
(09:58):
that mosquito that's flying around in your room at night
and you hear him, he's in your ear and you
swat your ear. You can't see him at night. They
just never stop and they will not stop with this either.
Let's go next to I, Leen and Waltham, I lean
next on nightside.
Speaker 6 (10:15):
Welcome, Welcome to you, good evening, Dadhileen. So just to
I think one of the problems is we don't want
to believe that evil exists. And it does.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
It sure does.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
And I think that's part of the problem. There's so
many people that don't realize will becoming a more and
more secular society where we don't think evil exists. And
all you have to do is look at October seventh
to seek evil, incredible evil, and it's and it exists everywhere.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Well, we got people, we got people in the United
States today who are demonstrating on college campuses from the
river to the sea. And all that means is eliminate
finished the job that Hamas started on October seventh. They
want they want everyone out of Israel. Are everyone in
Israel dead? And those are college students at Ivy League
(11:13):
colleges we're not talking about. Yeah, and I'm sure the
guy who gave over there in normally who gives the
Nazi salute, would also endorse that philosophy.
Speaker 6 (11:27):
Yeah, but we really don't want to believe in evil
and it's out there. And I think there were some
we talk about there were some people that are just
playing a moral they're not in moral there amorl. They
don't have anywhere.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Around marvels too, none whatsoever.
Speaker 6 (11:44):
Yeah, so they so it's not they're not in moral,
they just don't have any And I think, I mean,
there are some things that have done that nobody can.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
I mean.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
And here's the other thought too, just a quick thought.
If say you have somebody who when they were twenty five, thirty,
whatever whatever age, kill somebody if they have a change,
an attitude, change in soul, whatever you want to call it,
a lot of those people would stay in jail because
they believe that's where they belong.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
I understand that point. I understand that was the point.
Speaker 6 (12:22):
If you really had a real conversion, yeah, they you'd
be happy to stay in.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Jail by the way, I should have done this last hour.
But for those here in Massachusetts, let me give this
legislation was first introduced in twenty nineteen by Representative Jay
Livingstone and Senator Joseph Boncoori. At that time, it was
(12:52):
supported also by the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator
Jamie Eldridge. This year's legislation is sponsored by Representative Chris
Worrell and State Senator Liz Miranda. So if you live
in their districts, realize that the person who represents you
(13:13):
in the state legislature is one of the sponsors of
this piece of legislation. If not in twenty nineteen, now
in twenty twenty four. And if you feel as strongly
as I do about this, you might want to think
about maybe running for office here in Massachusetts because we
(13:34):
got a pretty interesting collection of characters in our legislature.
Speaker 5 (13:39):
Indefinitely.
Speaker 6 (13:41):
Here's another thought. If you look at different things like abortion,
is it is another issue I have a problem with.
First it was the first what nine weeks or something
that it went up, and then it went up, and
then Jerry and all of a sudden, now it's right
up to the birth of the child.
Speaker 7 (14:00):
Well again, yeah, as they say that that is a
subject again, yeah, I leen, it's it's that is one
of those issues that really does involve a lot of
morality and also religion based. And again I you know,
(14:21):
I I feel as you do on that issue, but
I don't want to mix it up with this one
because this.
Speaker 6 (14:27):
Is something the process of first, you know, first we're
going to have you.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
I get it. Well, it's called incrementalism. I understand. I lean,
I'm not stupid, you can, I lean, I lean, I
get your point. Okay, it's called incrementalism. Okay, it's as
simple as that. I mean, pretty much saying the same
way when you talk about evil. When Hitler expanded in Europe,
you know, first he only wanted a piece of this country.
(14:55):
Then he wanted a little bit of this country, that
a little bit, and then he wanted the rest of
that country. So that's incrementalistmer as well. Ilean, thank you
for your call. As always, we talk again, Thank you much.
Let me go to Berlin. It's I hope I pronounced
it correctly. Is it Berlin in Malden?
Speaker 5 (15:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (15:11):
You did?
Speaker 8 (15:11):
You pronounce it correctly?
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Hi?
Speaker 9 (15:13):
Dan?
Speaker 8 (15:13):
How are you? And I I haven't called him many
many years.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Well, thank you, well, thank you for listening. Nonetheless, what's
your thought on this issue?
Speaker 8 (15:22):
And it's Belanda the Bee. So I volunteer in prison.
I'm a volunteer teacher in a program called Another Way
to Go. I've been leading in prison since twenty eighteen.
And those include Susan Baranovski, which is the maximum security
prison MC I conquered MCI framing him, and I'm currently
(15:42):
leading two times a week at MCI Norfolk. Both programs
have twenty two participants in them. It's an eighteen week program, okay.
Speaker 9 (15:52):
And I'm with.
Speaker 8 (15:53):
Jan Delaney and I'm also with you. So, I mean, dude,
I think there's the part of after twenty five years,
just looking to look and revise and see bus this
patison perhaps eligible for reconsidering the fact of being able
(16:15):
to have parole, I think is appropriate. I have, you know,
forty four currently participants in our program, and out of
those forty four, a good majority or a good portion,
let's say, fifty percent have life sentences. Out of those,
there's many that have that had life sentences without parole,
(16:38):
but when they committed their crime, they were twenty or
nineteen and they now are eligible because there was a
new bill that was passed and if they were under
the age of twenty one, they would now be able
to go.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
No, that's another example where I can find twenty psychiatrists
next week who will tell me that their frontal their
brain is not fully developed and formed until they're thirty.
And so if we now have you know, said okay, people,
(17:14):
and I guess we now say we're going to revisit
those those cases. Why not reduce it? Why not bring
it up to thirty? Is it inconceivable that someone at
twenty nine could could commit a murder and twenty five
years later when they're fifty five, you know, not be
(17:35):
a different person. They might be a different person. But
I would, respectfully and I'm so glad you called, but
I would respectfully disagree with you because I don't know
when someone has committed murder in the first degree. You
know as well as I do that when they eliminated
capital punishment, one of the arguments was to commit murder
(17:56):
into first degree, you should stay away from stay in
prison for life now to see and shift and now
we're using that same argument to give people parole. What
do you say to the families, and let me ask
you this question. What do you say?
Speaker 4 (18:13):
Sorry? Good with you?
Speaker 8 (18:16):
I mean, this is such a such a That's why
I was driving on the highway and I pulled over
so I could try.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Sure, no, I appreciate it. So what do you say?
Here's my question. You sound like you're an off the
good person, and I mean that seriously. I'm not. I'm
not being you know, sarcastic at all. I admire what
you're doing and the fact that you're doing it as
a volunteers is amazing to me. Okay, but what do
you say to the family, to the progeny of you know,
(18:44):
someone whose mom or dad was murdered twenty five years ago,
maybe when they were five or six year old? Yeah,
so what how do.
Speaker 8 (18:52):
You It's awful and how do you balance that?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
The question is how do you balance? How do you
balance that interest? That's what my trouble is here.
Speaker 8 (18:59):
Right, and I'm trying to get to that. So the
definitely the crime itself, there's no that you know, there's
no taking that back, and it's awful. However, there's also
the human part of things, and I would say there's
a it's not all black or white. There's lots of
shades of gray. And when you actually.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Bellin, Bellen, here's what I got it. I got to
break for news. But do me a favors. Since you've
been kind enough to pull over, I don't want to
cut you short of rush you. Let's hold Can you
hold on for another couple of minutes. Let's get through
the newscast and I'll pick you up on the other side.
Fair enough, sure enough?
Speaker 5 (19:35):
Problem okay.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I want you to be able to think your thoughts clearly.
I don't want to feel safe. You only got one
minute left or something. I want to give you the
time because you had the coverage to call. Be back
with Bellin from Blun from Meldon will be back on
nights Side. If you'd like to join the conversation. We're
going to talk about this till eleven. I hope six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
(19:57):
But Bellin is up on the other side of the news.
Right after this, you're.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
On Night Side with Dan Ray on waz Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Thanks Al Griffin. Let me get back to my caller
that I have held over, Billin, who's calling in from Malden.
She works as a volunteer in Massachusetts prisons helping prisoners
learn how to read, and she seems to be of
mixed mind on this we're discussing is a piece of
legislation for those of you who are just joining us,
(20:31):
filed here in Massachusetts to eliminate life without parole. Bella
and I interrupted you. Thank you for sticking with us
once you continue with your thoughts.
Speaker 8 (20:41):
Okay, thank you. And just to clarify, the program that
we lead is not to read. It's a ontological and
transformational thinking program. So what we deal with is really
looking at your thoughts, your internal dialogue, your reactions, interpretation,
and how that all relates to behavior and actions and
(21:05):
then impact of those actions. So just to clarify that. Yeah,
and so what I was saying earlier is there there's
lots of shades of gray. It's not just black and white.
I mean the person in Norway. In Norway, I think
you said you know that person. I would say, yes, definitely,
(21:25):
that person should not be eligible or parole. However, you
might have somebody that perhaps reacted to their daughter getting
raped and at that point maybe they killed somebody because
they took their law in their own hands the moment
they saw the person that they know is the one
(21:45):
that raped their child. At that point, they committed a crime,
and the law is the same for everybody.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Yeah, well, I think that I think that in that situation,
that person would probably be looking at us second agree
murder at least in Massachusetts, or a manslaughter. They would
have to pay for the crime. We do not encourage
people to engage in what's called self help, but I
don't think that that individual would get a murder in
(22:15):
the first degree with the subsequent life sentence without parole.
So my question is this, though I'm sure that there's
a whole bunch of examples you can give us of
people who are in other people who are in there
for life in prison without parole, meaning they can be I.
Speaker 8 (22:35):
Have many participants in my program that have life sentences
with no parole.
Speaker 6 (22:40):
Okay, question is okay?
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Question is of those who you think would would would
benefit from a parole hearing that they have life without
parole so they don't have a right to a hearing.
What percentage of those that you've been exposed to do
(23:05):
you think should, based upon your observations, be paroled back
into society.
Speaker 8 (23:14):
So based upon my observations and based upon my opinion
of the participants that are in my class. Now, one
thing to point out is I don't know if I
have the worst of the worst in my class. However,
based on the ones that I do have in my
class over eight years of doing this work, I would
say the majority. I would give them that opportunity to
(23:39):
be able to present themselves. And here's why, because they
are in they're in prison, and so then they have
access to education, they have access to programs, so they're
not just sitting there idly, and they're actually very hungry
for transforming and improving and getting better. That's my orgization.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Well, thank you, thank you for that. Now, so my
question is this, of the however many there would be,
whether or not it's half or more or all of them. Now,
again we're talking about people. This is murder in the
first degree. So this is premeditation, deliberation, This is not
a moment of passion. This is not murdering the second
(24:26):
This is murdering the first degree. Okay, murdering the second degree,
you're parole eligible after fifteen years in Massachusetts. Murder in
the first degree, you're going to give these people parole hearings,
which then you're going to have to revisit this horrific
crime on the families of the victims, the survivors.
Speaker 8 (24:46):
Yes, that I think is also for the families.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
So then my question to you is what do you
say to the loved ones who are going to have
to go to the parole hearing and listen to some
psychologists tell us how that the guy that brutally murdered
their their mom or their dad or whomever, uh now
should be paroled. What what do you what empathy? What
(25:11):
do you say to them to help get them through
this this reliving of this nightmare.
Speaker 8 (25:20):
I mean, it's such a hard question done because what do.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
You it's intended to be.
Speaker 8 (25:28):
Of course I understand that, and and that's the thing
I mean I personally, I mean, it's so hard. I
don't know if you've ever seen it. Sometimes there's there's
prisoners and quote unquote criminals that are then sometimes in
touch with family members and they somehow been able to
get to a point where they forgive. And the forgiveness
(25:53):
is what sets families and others free on both sides.
Because often time, in my observation. The prisoners themselves have
the guilds, the shame and all of that, and then they.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
I would say that the family that would forgive someone
for having killed again a mom or a dad, or
a son or a daughter or whatever, a close family.
I don't think that someone you know, someone who's a
brother in law or a sister in law has the
standing to forgive, Okay, but I think they would be
(26:34):
very rare people, uh two, very rare, very rare people.
And and that's why I'm very hesitant. And that's why
I am bringing this up tonight, and I hope to
hear from more people. You make a great presentation. You're
you're a better person than I am, Bellam. Okay, I
mean that seriously. I am someone who in cases where
(26:58):
there's no scintilla of doubt about a person's guilt or
innocence and they have engaged in a and a heinous
act with aggravating circumstances, such as Boston bomber number two,
I would apply the death penalty without equivocation. I suspect
(27:19):
you probably would not under anything.
Speaker 8 (27:23):
I disagree with that because it depends I certainly think
that it depends on the case.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Well, let me ask you this on Boston bomber number two,
who has now lived twelve years past the date of
what he and his brother did. He's sitting at the
supermax in Colorado. Would you, if you know, would you
support the death penalty for him?
Speaker 8 (27:45):
I mean, I think.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
You said it depends upon the case. That's the case.
Speaker 8 (27:50):
Everyone knows the only so my only reservation was his
age when he did it. Other than that, I would
say yes.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
And he was very at what age? And you at
what age in your mind could someone commit? Or is
there any age could someone you? I think you're moving
target for me here at what age in your mind
do people if this kid was? How old would you say,
(28:19):
if he was forty and he did this, would you
be willing to apply the death penalty? And what age?
Speaker 8 (28:24):
I think he was twenty five? See well, I don't
think he was twenty five. I think he was young
in either nineteen or twenty when he did it, or eighteen.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
I think he was twenty one. So if he had
been twenty five, so you're not inalterably opposed to the
death penalty, you're telling me I mentioned earlier tonight about
if you were listening the two criminals who you know
(28:54):
the Prewer case down in Connecticut.
Speaker 8 (28:59):
You found I was working, so I didn't sare that part?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Well? Real? Simply these two criminals, it was a home invasion.
They tied up a doctor, the dad and the husband
in the house. Tied him up, immobilized him down cellar.
They raped two young girls, I think they were eight
and ten. They raped the mother. They took the mother
to a bank to withdraw some money. She was able,
(29:24):
this is about ten years ago. She was able to
communicate somehow quietly with their eyes to a teller. The
teller sense that there was a problem. She called police.
When they got back to the home, police started to
surround the house. The two killers doused the girls who
had been tied up in their bed with gasoline, set
(29:44):
the house on fire. They were both like in their
forties fifties, and they fled the house. So there was
no doubt about who committed these crimes. They killed the
wife and they basically burned their daughters to death the
husbandhouse because the fire department was there. They're well over
twenty five. Would have you gone for the death penalty
(30:07):
for them?
Speaker 8 (30:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:09):
I have good? Okay, great, okay? Although that we can agree.
I hate to do this year, but we've gone a
long time only because the time you're welcome, please continue
to call the program. Thanks, good night. All right, I
have wide open lines here. I will promise no one
else will get ten minutes. I'd like to hear a
quick round from you on this. Do you want to
(30:31):
keep life without parole in Massachusetts? We're going to switch
topics at eleven, we're gonna go to the twentieth hour.
Do you want to keep life without parole in Massachusetts?
I do for murder one for cases people who are
convicted of murder one, which is premeditation deliberation. Is that
it's the highest level of murder in Massachusetts. Or do
you agree with my guest from the nine o'clock hour
(30:51):
or those who would want to get rid of it
and make even people who commit murder one parole eligible
after twenty five years. I'm inalterably opposed to this. I'd
love to hear from you, particularly if you agree with me.
Six one, seven, five, four, ten, thirty six months, seven nine,
three thirty. I got wide open lines. I'll get everybody
in quick answers from now until eleven.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Night side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
All right, we're talking about a piece of legislation that
has been filed here in Massachusetts which would eliminate the
penalty of life without parole. Let me go to Karen
and rock Board. Karen, appreciate your patience. You were next
on NIGHTSI thanks for calling in.
Speaker 9 (31:39):
Hi, Dan, first time caller. I can't believe I'm actually
calling in on this, but.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Well, thank you. First of all, being the first time
calling You're gonna get around of a boss from our
studio audience, our digital studio audience, love to hear what
your thoughts are. Go ahead.
Speaker 9 (31:53):
I just think they're absolutely nuts to even consider this.
So nothing should surprise me with politics lately. But now
they were tried, they were sentenced, the sentence sticks. There's
there's a reason they were given the sentence they have.
(32:16):
I don't feel like paying for these people forever and
the Sonaya brothers. Simple solution. Sit them next to a
bomb like they built. Blow it up if they make
it okay, if they don't, you know, the brothers that left.
I mean, that's harse, But seriously, there's there's might be.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
Appropriate, would probably prevent cruel and and usual punishment of
the Eighth Amendment. No, what we're talking about here, and
this is this is interesting. In Massachusetts, in order to
get if you're convicted a murder in the first degree,
it means it means premeditation and deliberations. That it's it's
(33:02):
not a crime of passion. It's not a fight in
the bar room. Those are the sort of second degree
murder cases. This is like a contract killer. This is
somebody who says, well, I'm gonna you know, I need
to get someone because I need to kill a business partner,
I got to kill a spouse. These are the worst
of the worst. And now what happens is remember when
(33:25):
they got rid of the death penalty in Massachusetts. The
argument was, well, you know what, the death penalty is
too good for them because that way it gets them
out of here quickly. No, make them stay in prison
for the rest of their lives. They deserve that.
Speaker 9 (33:36):
Punishment, and that's the punishment.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
And now we're not Now they've changed.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Now they've changed the rules of the game. Now it's like,
wait a second, it's not fair to the inmate. They
have to give them hope that twenty five years you
now they might get a parole to heck with the
families who are gonna have to show up with the
parole hearing. It's just Massachusetts. It's this creep being progressive incrementalism.
(34:04):
They're never happy. Look what would stop some legislature a
few years from now to say or whatever. Say well, well,
twenty five years is a long time. Let's cut it
down to fifteen years, you know. And I was pointing
out that there was this guy in Norway. You hear
so many people say, well, you know, in Europe they're
(34:26):
much you know, it's a better criminal just system. No,
it isn't this guy in Norway that blew up a
bomb in Oslo, killed eight people and then went and
killed sixty nine kids at a summer camp, seventy seven
people in one day. He was sentenced to I think
it was twenty years in prison. He will get out
(34:47):
of prison in twenty thirty two because he committed this
crime in the summer of twenty eleven, and he is
up for a parole hearing in Norway. They turned him down,
thank god. But he's got a parole hearing ten years into.
Speaker 9 (35:02):
His sentence, ten years in.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
When you do the math, ten years in and oh,
by the way, when he showed up at the sentence,
he gave a Nazi salute. Oh yeah, I want that
guy out. Oh yeah. It doesn't.
Speaker 9 (35:22):
Know if there's some kind of doubt, you know, that's
one thing, but that I I just think they're absolutely
insane to even be talking about this. I would hope
you get a checking to do.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
If you get a chance over the weekend, check us
out Nightside of Demand. Listen to the nine o'clock hour.
I had a fellow one who's one of the lobbyistsuff
at the State House who supports this and it's a
more thorough review of it. Hey, Karen, thanks very much.
If you listen to night Side and you agree with
me in this, I want you as a frequent caller,
come on it.
Speaker 9 (36:00):
I listen all the time.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Thank you getting here and I need your voice. Thank
you much. Have a great night. Let me get Ken
and walthon. Ken you're next on Nights and I'm going
to be fascinating to know what you wanted to do
on this go ahead can.
Speaker 5 (36:11):
Be obviously I can't. Yeah, I wondered if there's the incrementalism,
if we're you know, the death penalty is taken away,
life without paroles taken away if we're taking away some
prosecutor tools for them to be able to, you know,
negotiate guilty. Please, you know, we can't hold these tougher
sentences against them and say you don't plead guilty to
(36:33):
a lesser crime.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
If we take one, that's a factor. No, that that's
a factor. It's a minu factor as far as I'm concerned,
because most of these folks who are looking at a
at a crime of life without parole, you know, they
know they're going down. And you know, but but again,
if that's off the table, maybe they'll, you know, give
me a second degree murder so I can be eligible
in fifteen years.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
Or life with parol. Right, So yeah, oh, I see
what you're saying though, if they're both taken off.
Speaker 8 (37:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (37:01):
The other thing I just wanted to bring up, I like,
you know, Leslie van Houton the Manson, Yeah, right, murderer
right at age nineteen. She was paroled at fifty three
years later, and I you know, just listening to her,
I mean, she just seems like an entirely different person.
And I certainly wasn't screaming up and down, going injustice.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
In Jen No, you know, I get you on that one.
But you know, tell tell me how you feel about
Sharon Kate Sharon Tate.
Speaker 5 (37:31):
Oh no, I'm with you. Know, I'm not necessarily saying
therefore we should.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
No, I understand. But but if you're going to involve
in a home invasion and then kill a pregnant woman
with her unborn child and others, and you know you
fell under the spell of this really bad guy Manson,
you know you did this. You know it wasn't like
(37:57):
you got caught deal in marijuana on Sunset's trip some night,
because you will. You know, this is a pretty serious crime.
I just don't. I don't have it in my heart.
I don't have it in my heart under.
Speaker 5 (38:08):
Your view, definitely, definitely she should not have been parole
in your view.
Speaker 2 (38:12):
Absolutely, you do it. You do it, you do it
under those circumstances, you know, if it.
Speaker 5 (38:18):
Was well and you know the reason I bring that
up just to throw that out there. And again I don't.
I don't have a super super strong opinion either way.
I mean, yep, I hear you just is you know
Bombering number two fifty three years from now to be
let out right if he I mean he same age
as Leslie van Houten, under the control of.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
His theoretically, yeah, theoretically yeah, would you? I mean he
knew what he was doing. He did it more dramatically
than she did. But she went in there that night
with text Ritter or whatever the heck. The kid's name
was Uh and Uh. They did the deed on the
instruction of Manson. So I guess I got a cold heart. Sorry.
Speaker 5 (39:02):
I think it's a tough, tough, tough question.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
I think I think it's Thanks, buddy, we'll talk. I
gotta I gotta scoot here. I got the eleven coming.
Thanks for calling in, Terry and on the cape. Terry,
I can only give you about ten seconds. You're really late,
Am I right or wrong? Just tell me quickly?
Speaker 10 (39:20):
Still right? But I'd like to add one more thing.
Every mass shooter that shoots in schools, et cetera, et cetera,
send them to Elsdalmador real quick and stop the nonsense.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
I'm with you, Terry. Thanks much. Maybe maybe the president
has an exception we could carve out. Thanks, Terry. We'll
talk soon. Okay, all right, twentieth hour coming up. I'm
not sure what we're gonna do. But remember hall passes
for everyone. If you've called this week, you can still
call in the twentieth hour back on night's side. After this.
Speaker 11 (39:50):
It's Jim from ACE Ticket.
Speaker 12 (39:51):
I know it would be so hard and confusing to
buy tickets to constant plays Boston Salvat's or a Red
Stars game or your favorite team.
Speaker 11 (40:00):
That's why Age ticket makes it easy.
Speaker 12 (40:02):
ACE has been Boston's trustworthy source for tickets since nineteen
seventy nine. We are located right here in Kenmore Square,
and we still answer our phones and provide friendly and
helpful customs service.
Speaker 11 (40:12):
And here's the best part.
Speaker 12 (40:14):
We provide that helpful service for free. We call it
service with no service fees. Yes, that's awesome.
Speaker 11 (40:20):
That's right at ACE ticket. Oup prices include fees.
Speaker 12 (40:23):
Unlike other websites, we don't try to fool you. We
provide upfront pricing. The first price you see is the
price you pay. So do yourself a favor next time
you treat yourself for someone special, Get the best seats
of the lowest prices and start paying fees.
Speaker 11 (40:38):
Buy local and saved.
Speaker 12 (40:41):
Call one eight hundred my seats a visit aceticket dot com.
Speaker 13 (40:44):
Hi, It's Taylor, your other other Interstate Batteries guy here
to let you know we've moved. Check out our new
retail location at to A Draper Street. Where find us
fast at Interstate Batteries dot com.
Speaker 14 (40:55):
Hey, this is Steve Anders. When was less time you
serviced your sumpump? Call the sumpump weeks at one eight
four four four three three five two two five Some
pump geeks dot Com.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
WBZ in Boston w XKSFM EHTY two Bedford and iHeartRadio station.
This is WBZ, Boston's news radio. We defining local news.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
Yeah, fifty seven degrees in Boston at eleven o'clock. Good evening.
Speaker 11 (41:28):
I'm Al Griffith and here's what's happening.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Well. The first week in the Karen Reid murder Reed
trial is in the books. Among the proceedings today, the
jury bust to the home in Canton where the body
of Reed's patrolman boyfriend John O'Keefe was found out in
the yard during a snowstorm.
Speaker 12 (41:44):
Now, she's accused of hitting him with her SUV and
leaving the scene while he lay in the snow and
then died from his injuries. Reid did not attend the
visit to the home today on Fairview Road, although she
was given permission to
It's Night Side with Dan Ray w BZY Constance Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Nor Griffith, thanks very much. Trevian Henderson is a stud
with Ohio State. He is a player, and my prediction
is that he will be the number one or two
running back for the Patriots this year. Those have done
well so far on their draft choices. I think Henderson's
the best pick of the second rod. I'm surprised he
lasted that long anyway. Always good to hear from Al
(00:28):
Griffith here on a Friday night. We're a little bit
after ten o'clock now and we're continuing on conversation and
reacting to a piece of legislation that has been filed
up on Beacon Hill. I certainly hope it doesn't pass.
My friend Harvey Silverglate and I are in disagreement on this,
but we had with us last hour. Dan Delaney. He
(00:49):
is a lobbyist up there, the Daniel Delaney of the
Delaney Policy Group, and he answered questions honestly and straightforward,
which is great. He and I. He knew that he
would that I would disagree with him. I think it's
crazy to eliminate life without parole again. We eliminated the
death penalty based upon the argument that, well, you know,
(01:11):
if you unless you're absolutely sure, and I've tried to
narrow my view of the death penalty on it. I
would still support a death penalty if it's without a
scentilla of doubt. And I'm talking about something like the
Boston bombers, where there are aggravating circumstances. Boston bombers, the
(01:31):
Boston bomber number two, which is a perfect characterization of
the Boston bomber. We don't use his name, we just
call him number two, which he is. He has now
lived on the public dole from for whoever they came
here from, Dagaistan, god knows. But he's been incarcerated for
twelve years. I say that it's time for him to
(01:53):
be disposed of because again, there is no sintilla of
doubt of what he did, and there are no mitigating circumstances.
And there are some significant aggravating circumstances in terms of
the number of people who they killed, the innocent people
who were there just to watch the marathon on April fifteen,
twenty thirteen. But we're not talking about that. What they're
talking about now is getting rid of life without parole
(02:16):
because back they're twenty years ago, they were saying.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Well, you know, these inmates, they're really afraid of life
without parole. They you know, they want the death penalty,
and they in fact, they all.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Try to avoid the death penalty. But that's neither hear
nor there. So it was used as a lever leverage
to eliminate the death penalty in Massachusetts, and now it's
being used to eliminate life without parole. And the toughest
sentence would be twenty five years with the possibility parole,
which of course means the family would have to go
(02:52):
to if they chose to the parole board hearings, they
would have to relive every twenty five years, and maybe
more often, because if you get a parle and you're
denying at twenty five, maybe they'll come. These guys have
nothing else to do. A file again, Let me get
a ride, Let me get a ride to the prole board.
I just tell you this, the progressives in Massachusetts are
(03:16):
running the state, and if they ran the state, this
is the way they would like to run the state
in Massachusetts. And my guest made the point, which is legitimate,
that deterrence, punishment, public safety well, they took away to Terrance.
In terms of the death penalty across the board, that's
number one, and then in terms of punishment. Now, what
(03:38):
they're saying is it's conceivable that someone could be somehow
restored after twenty five years. I don't think so. They
didn't give the person who they killed an didn't say
that the look, I'll be back and I'll kill you
in twenty five years, but you got twenty five years
left to live. Public safety, keep them locked up. Let's
go back to the call is the only will we
(04:00):
have one line at six one seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty and one line at six one seven. Gonna
go to Jim. Jim, you were next on night side.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Welcome and thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Are you I'm doing great, Jim. What's your take on this?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
Well, I've called in about this before, but I'll just
remind you the reason why you have to have l
WOP or the death penalty is because, and you already
said this, but a lot of these depraved people are
mobbed up with other deveaved people, and if they think
that there's any chance whatsoever that doing more crime or
(04:37):
killing more people will get their friend released early then
they will do just exactly that. So there has to
be certain people.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Give me an example of that. Give me an example.
I don't follow that, Jim. So so some you know,
some guy is in prison, uh life without parole.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
Dan want gangs?
Speaker 2 (05:02):
I get it.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
Gangs they're connected, Dan, they don't. They're not just like oh,
our guy went off to prison. They stay connected in
the joint.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
So if they have the possibility of parole, how how's
that going to lead to another murder? That's what I'm
confused about.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
No extortion.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I still don't understand that. Jim, explain it to me
so I can get it. I just I'm not following
my fault.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
This is another This is another example of the same
type of activity. But these uh South American gangs, if
there's a concert down in Mexico and they don't want
it to happen, they'll just call and a level of
threat and then people know that they follow through on
their threats, so then they can they can cause things
(05:52):
to not happen and things to happen. But if if
everybody knows that there's that, no matter what they do,
they're not to be able to affect any change in
that area. Then they won't do it. But if there's
a possibility that there would they will affect change, then
they will do just about anything too.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
No. But but I'm saying, if let's say there is
someone who's coming up on a parole hearing after twenty
five years, I'm opposed to this because certain crimes murdering
the first degree. You know, there's no reason to change
that at this point. But let's assume they change it.
Are you suggesting that then people are going to threaten
parole officers or family members. Don't testify against my friend
(06:35):
who's coming up for parole after having killed your family members.
That is that the point you're trying to make.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
I don't know. I don't know exactly how they would
do it or how exactly they do it. All I
know there are certain people that are absolutely ruthless, and
if they think they could do something to get their
friend out earlier, then they will do that.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Okay, I think I would agree with you. There are
very bad people, and there are people I know who
extort money from people, and they will they can say
to someone in some of these countries, you're not going
to have a concert, because I get that. But I
didn't understand harves Will related to this. Thanks Jim, have
a great weekend. We will continue with our conversations. The
only line open right now is six one seven, nine three, one,
(07:19):
ten thirty. There were two lines there, so don't break
your knuckles or your fingernails dialing six one, seven, two,
five four ten thirty. Those lines are full. Six one seven,
nine three one ten thirty. Is there anyone out there
who thinks that the idea of getting rid of life
without parole for murder in the first degree and potentially
some other crimes. There's a there's a crime out of
(07:41):
Norway that was brought to my attention today. There was
a guy who killed I think it was eighty five
school kids at a camp in Norway. And this guy,
I guess, is now parole eligible. That's I got to
look it up during the break here. But we always
have these these The progressors will say, well, in Europe
they don't treat people in prison as harshly as I
(08:03):
don't care. But there's this case in Europe, which again
has no application to us. But the guy killed eighty
five kids or something like that, some bizarre number at
a summer camp and he theoretically has a right to
parole hearings back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
By the way, as I said, I talked about this
Norwegian guy. His name is Anders Brevic. He killed in
a car bombing in Oslo in July of twenty eleven,
eight people in a car bomb. Then he went to
a summer camp and killed sixty nine kids in a
summer camp. So he killed in total seventy seven people.
(08:52):
This is in Norway, a much more enlightened country than ours.
He was jailed from maximum of twenty one years, which
means he will be released as I read this story
in twenty thirty two, that's like what eight years from
(09:14):
seven years from now. So he applied in twenty twenty
two for parole. They decided that he's still crazy, he's
a dangerous guy, and they kept him. But oh yeah,
when he showed up he renounced violence. But he gave
(09:34):
Nazi salutes in the opening day of the hearing. But
of course you'll have some folks here who are going
to say, oh, yeah, you know, we should have a
criminal justice system more like Norway or Sweden or Denmark
or Germany or whatever. It's insane. And here in Massachusetts
you have the progressives who never stop. They are like
(09:58):
that mosquito that's flying around in your room at night
and you hear him, he's in your ear and you
swat your ear. You can't see him at night. They
just never stop and they will not stop with this either.
Let's go next to I, Leen and Waltham, I lean
next on nightside.
Speaker 6 (10:15):
Welcome, Welcome to you, good evening, Dadhileen. So just to
I think one of the problems is we don't want
to believe that evil exists. And it does.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
It sure does.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
And I think that's part of the problem. There's so
many people that don't realize will becoming a more and
more secular society where we don't think evil exists. And
all you have to do is look at October seventh
to seek evil, incredible evil, and it's and it exists everywhere.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Well, we got people, we got people in the United
States today who are demonstrating on college campuses from the
river to the sea. And all that means is eliminate
finished the job that Hamas started on October seventh. They
want they want everyone out of Israel. Are everyone in
Israel dead? And those are college students at Ivy League
(11:13):
colleges we're not talking about. Yeah, and I'm sure the
guy who gave over there in normally who gives the
Nazi salute, would also endorse that philosophy.
Speaker 6 (11:27):
Yeah, but we really don't want to believe in evil
and it's out there. And I think there were some
we talk about there were some people that are just
playing a moral they're not in moral there amorl. They
don't have anywhere.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Around marvels too, none whatsoever.
Speaker 6 (11:44):
Yeah, so they so it's not they're not in moral,
they just don't have any And I think, I mean,
there are some things that have done that nobody can.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
I mean.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
And here's the other thought too, just a quick thought.
If say you have somebody who when they were twenty five, thirty,
whatever whatever age, kill somebody if they have a change,
an attitude, change in soul, whatever you want to call it,
a lot of those people would stay in jail because
they believe that's where they belong.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
I understand that point. I understand that was the point.
Speaker 6 (12:22):
If you really had a real conversion, yeah, they you'd
be happy to stay in.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Jail by the way, I should have done this last hour.
But for those here in Massachusetts, let me give this
legislation was first introduced in twenty nineteen by Representative Jay
Livingstone and Senator Joseph Boncoori. At that time, it was
(12:52):
supported also by the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator
Jamie Eldridge. This year's legislation is sponsored by Representative Chris
Worrell and State Senator Liz Miranda. So if you live
in their districts, realize that the person who represents you
(13:13):
in the state legislature is one of the sponsors of
this piece of legislation. If not in twenty nineteen, now
in twenty twenty four. And if you feel as strongly
as I do about this, you might want to think
about maybe running for office here in Massachusetts because we
(13:34):
got a pretty interesting collection of characters in our legislature.
Speaker 5 (13:39):
Indefinitely.
Speaker 6 (13:41):
Here's another thought. If you look at different things like abortion,
is it is another issue I have a problem with.
First it was the first what nine weeks or something
that it went up, and then it went up, and
then Jerry and all of a sudden, now it's right
up to the birth of the child.
Speaker 7 (14:00):
Well again, yeah, as they say that that is a
subject again, yeah, I leen, it's it's that is one
of those issues that really does involve a lot of
morality and also religion based. And again I you know,
(14:21):
I I feel as you do on that issue, but
I don't want to mix it up with this one
because this.
Speaker 6 (14:27):
Is something the process of first, you know, first we're
going to have you.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
I get it. Well, it's called incrementalism. I understand. I lean,
I'm not stupid, you can, I lean, I lean, I
get your point. Okay, it's called incrementalism. Okay, it's as
simple as that. I mean, pretty much saying the same
way when you talk about evil. When Hitler expanded in Europe,
you know, first he only wanted a piece of this country.
(14:55):
Then he wanted a little bit of this country, that
a little bit, and then he wanted the rest of
that country. So that's incrementalistmer as well. Ilean, thank you
for your call. As always, we talk again, Thank you much.
Let me go to Berlin. It's I hope I pronounced
it correctly. Is it Berlin in Malden?
Speaker 5 (15:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (15:11):
You did?
Speaker 8 (15:11):
You pronounce it correctly?
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Hi?
Speaker 9 (15:13):
Dan?
Speaker 8 (15:13):
How are you? And I I haven't called him many
many years.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Well, thank you, well, thank you for listening. Nonetheless, what's
your thought on this issue?
Speaker 8 (15:22):
And it's Belanda the Bee. So I volunteer in prison.
I'm a volunteer teacher in a program called Another Way
to Go. I've been leading in prison since twenty eighteen.
And those include Susan Baranovski, which is the maximum security
prison MC I conquered MCI framing him, and I'm currently
(15:42):
leading two times a week at MCI Norfolk. Both programs
have twenty two participants in them. It's an eighteen week program, okay.
Speaker 9 (15:52):
And I'm with.
Speaker 8 (15:53):
Jan Delaney and I'm also with you. So, I mean, dude,
I think there's the part of after twenty five years,
just looking to look and revise and see bus this
patison perhaps eligible for reconsidering the fact of being able
(16:15):
to have parole, I think is appropriate. I have, you know,
forty four currently participants in our program, and out of
those forty four, a good majority or a good portion,
let's say, fifty percent have life sentences. Out of those,
there's many that have that had life sentences without parole,
(16:38):
but when they committed their crime, they were twenty or
nineteen and they now are eligible because there was a
new bill that was passed and if they were under
the age of twenty one, they would now be able
to go.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
No, that's another example where I can find twenty psychiatrists
next week who will tell me that their frontal their
brain is not fully developed and formed until they're thirty.
And so if we now have you know, said okay, people,
(17:14):
and I guess we now say we're going to revisit
those those cases. Why not reduce it? Why not bring
it up to thirty? Is it inconceivable that someone at
twenty nine could could commit a murder and twenty five
years later when they're fifty five, you know, not be
(17:35):
a different person. They might be a different person. But
I would, respectfully and I'm so glad you called, but
I would respectfully disagree with you because I don't know
when someone has committed murder in the first degree. You
know as well as I do that when they eliminated
capital punishment, one of the arguments was to commit murder
(17:56):
into first degree, you should stay away from stay in
prison for life now to see and shift and now
we're using that same argument to give people parole. What
do you say to the families, and let me ask
you this question. What do you say?
Speaker 4 (18:13):
Sorry? Good with you?
Speaker 8 (18:16):
I mean, this is such a such a That's why
I was driving on the highway and I pulled over
so I could try.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Sure, no, I appreciate it. So what do you say?
Here's my question. You sound like you're an off the
good person, and I mean that seriously. I'm not. I'm
not being you know, sarcastic at all. I admire what
you're doing and the fact that you're doing it as
a volunteers is amazing to me. Okay, but what do
you say to the family, to the progeny of you know,
(18:44):
someone whose mom or dad was murdered twenty five years ago,
maybe when they were five or six year old? Yeah,
so what how do.
Speaker 8 (18:52):
You It's awful and how do you balance that?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
The question is how do you balance? How do you
balance that interest? That's what my trouble is here.
Speaker 8 (18:59):
Right, and I'm trying to get to that. So the
definitely the crime itself, there's no that you know, there's
no taking that back, and it's awful. However, there's also
the human part of things, and I would say there's
a it's not all black or white. There's lots of
shades of gray. And when you actually.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Bellin, Bellen, here's what I got it. I got to
break for news. But do me a favors. Since you've
been kind enough to pull over, I don't want to
cut you short of rush you. Let's hold Can you
hold on for another couple of minutes. Let's get through
the newscast and I'll pick you up on the other side.
Fair enough, sure enough?
Speaker 5 (19:35):
Problem okay.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I want you to be able to think your thoughts clearly.
I don't want to feel safe. You only got one
minute left or something. I want to give you the
time because you had the coverage to call. Be back
with Bellin from Blun from Meldon will be back on
nights Side. If you'd like to join the conversation. We're
going to talk about this till eleven. I hope six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
(19:57):
But Bellin is up on the other side of the news.
Right after this, you're.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
On Night Side with Dan Ray on waz Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Thanks Al Griffin. Let me get back to my caller
that I have held over, Billin, who's calling in from Malden.
She works as a volunteer in Massachusetts prisons helping prisoners
learn how to read, and she seems to be of
mixed mind on this we're discussing is a piece of
legislation for those of you who are just joining us,
(20:31):
filed here in Massachusetts to eliminate life without parole. Bella
and I interrupted you. Thank you for sticking with us
once you continue with your thoughts.
Speaker 8 (20:41):
Okay, thank you. And just to clarify, the program that
we lead is not to read. It's a ontological and
transformational thinking program. So what we deal with is really
looking at your thoughts, your internal dialogue, your reactions, interpretation,
and how that all relates to behavior and actions and
(21:05):
then impact of those actions. So just to clarify that. Yeah,
and so what I was saying earlier is there there's
lots of shades of gray. It's not just black and white.
I mean the person in Norway. In Norway, I think
you said you know that person. I would say, yes, definitely,
(21:25):
that person should not be eligible or parole. However, you
might have somebody that perhaps reacted to their daughter getting
raped and at that point maybe they killed somebody because
they took their law in their own hands the moment
they saw the person that they know is the one
(21:45):
that raped their child. At that point, they committed a crime,
and the law is the same for everybody.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Yeah, well, I think that I think that in that situation,
that person would probably be looking at us second agree
murder at least in Massachusetts, or a manslaughter. They would
have to pay for the crime. We do not encourage
people to engage in what's called self help, but I
don't think that that individual would get a murder in
(22:15):
the first degree with the subsequent life sentence without parole.
So my question is this, though I'm sure that there's
a whole bunch of examples you can give us of
people who are in other people who are in there
for life in prison without parole, meaning they can be I.
Speaker 8 (22:35):
Have many participants in my program that have life sentences
with no parole.
Speaker 6 (22:40):
Okay, question is okay?
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Question is of those who you think would would would
benefit from a parole hearing that they have life without
parole so they don't have a right to a hearing.
What percentage of those that you've been exposed to do
(23:05):
you think should, based upon your observations, be paroled back
into society.
Speaker 8 (23:14):
So based upon my observations and based upon my opinion
of the participants that are in my class. Now, one
thing to point out is I don't know if I
have the worst of the worst in my class. However,
based on the ones that I do have in my
class over eight years of doing this work, I would
say the majority. I would give them that opportunity to
(23:39):
be able to present themselves. And here's why, because they
are in they're in prison, and so then they have
access to education, they have access to programs, so they're
not just sitting there idly, and they're actually very hungry
for transforming and improving and getting better. That's my orgization.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Well, thank you, thank you for that. Now, so my
question is this, of the however many there would be,
whether or not it's half or more or all of them. Now,
again we're talking about people. This is murder in the
first degree. So this is premeditation, deliberation, This is not
a moment of passion. This is not murdering the second
(24:26):
This is murdering the first degree. Okay, murdering the second degree,
you're parole eligible after fifteen years in Massachusetts. Murder in
the first degree, you're going to give these people parole hearings,
which then you're going to have to revisit this horrific
crime on the families of the victims, the survivors.
Speaker 8 (24:46):
Yes, that I think is also for the families.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
So then my question to you is what do you
say to the loved ones who are going to have
to go to the parole hearing and listen to some
psychologists tell us how that the guy that brutally murdered
their their mom or their dad or whomever, uh now
should be paroled. What what do you what empathy? What
(25:11):
do you say to them to help get them through
this this reliving of this nightmare.
Speaker 8 (25:20):
I mean, it's such a hard question done because what do.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
You it's intended to be.
Speaker 8 (25:28):
Of course I understand that, and and that's the thing
I mean I personally, I mean, it's so hard. I
don't know if you've ever seen it. Sometimes there's there's
prisoners and quote unquote criminals that are then sometimes in
touch with family members and they somehow been able to
get to a point where they forgive. And the forgiveness
(25:53):
is what sets families and others free on both sides.
Because often time, in my observation. The prisoners themselves have
the guilds, the shame and all of that, and then they.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
I would say that the family that would forgive someone
for having killed again a mom or a dad, or
a son or a daughter or whatever, a close family.
I don't think that someone you know, someone who's a
brother in law or a sister in law has the
standing to forgive, Okay, but I think they would be
(26:34):
very rare people, uh two, very rare, very rare people.
And and that's why I'm very hesitant. And that's why
I am bringing this up tonight, and I hope to
hear from more people. You make a great presentation. You're
you're a better person than I am, Bellam. Okay, I
mean that seriously. I am someone who in cases where
(26:58):
there's no scintilla of doubt about a person's guilt or
innocence and they have engaged in a and a heinous
act with aggravating circumstances, such as Boston bomber number two,
I would apply the death penalty without equivocation. I suspect
(27:19):
you probably would not under anything.
Speaker 8 (27:23):
I disagree with that because it depends I certainly think
that it depends on the case.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Well, let me ask you this on Boston bomber number two,
who has now lived twelve years past the date of
what he and his brother did. He's sitting at the
supermax in Colorado. Would you, if you know, would you
support the death penalty for him?
Speaker 8 (27:45):
I mean, I think.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
You said it depends upon the case. That's the case.
Speaker 8 (27:50):
Everyone knows the only so my only reservation was his
age when he did it. Other than that, I would
say yes.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
And he was very at what age? And you at
what age in your mind could someone commit? Or is
there any age could someone you? I think you're moving
target for me here at what age in your mind
do people if this kid was? How old would you say,
(28:19):
if he was forty and he did this, would you
be willing to apply the death penalty? And what age?
Speaker 8 (28:24):
I think he was twenty five? See well, I don't
think he was twenty five. I think he was young
in either nineteen or twenty when he did it, or eighteen.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
I think he was twenty one. So if he had
been twenty five, so you're not inalterably opposed to the
death penalty, you're telling me I mentioned earlier tonight about
if you were listening the two criminals who you know
(28:54):
the Prewer case down in Connecticut.
Speaker 8 (28:59):
You found I was working, so I didn't sare that part?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Well? Real? Simply these two criminals, it was a home invasion.
They tied up a doctor, the dad and the husband
in the house. Tied him up, immobilized him down cellar.
They raped two young girls, I think they were eight
and ten. They raped the mother. They took the mother
to a bank to withdraw some money. She was able,
(29:24):
this is about ten years ago. She was able to
communicate somehow quietly with their eyes to a teller. The
teller sense that there was a problem. She called police.
When they got back to the home, police started to
surround the house. The two killers doused the girls who
had been tied up in their bed with gasoline, set
(29:44):
the house on fire. They were both like in their
forties fifties, and they fled the house. So there was
no doubt about who committed these crimes. They killed the
wife and they basically burned their daughters to death the
husbandhouse because the fire department was there. They're well over
twenty five. Would have you gone for the death penalty
(30:07):
for them?
Speaker 8 (30:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:09):
I have good? Okay, great, okay? Although that we can agree.
I hate to do this year, but we've gone a
long time only because the time you're welcome, please continue
to call the program. Thanks, good night. All right, I
have wide open lines here. I will promise no one
else will get ten minutes. I'd like to hear a
quick round from you on this. Do you want to
(30:31):
keep life without parole in Massachusetts? We're going to switch
topics at eleven, we're gonna go to the twentieth hour.
Do you want to keep life without parole in Massachusetts?
I do for murder one for cases people who are
convicted of murder one, which is premeditation deliberation. Is that
it's the highest level of murder in Massachusetts. Or do
you agree with my guest from the nine o'clock hour
(30:51):
or those who would want to get rid of it
and make even people who commit murder one parole eligible
after twenty five years. I'm inalterably opposed to this. I'd
love to hear from you, particularly if you agree with me.
Six one, seven, five, four, ten, thirty six months, seven nine,
three thirty. I got wide open lines. I'll get everybody
in quick answers from now until eleven.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Night side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
All right, we're talking about a piece of legislation that
has been filed here in Massachusetts which would eliminate the
penalty of life without parole. Let me go to Karen
and rock Board. Karen, appreciate your patience. You were next
on NIGHTSI thanks for calling in.
Speaker 9 (31:39):
Hi, Dan, first time caller. I can't believe I'm actually
calling in on this, but.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Well, thank you. First of all, being the first time
calling You're gonna get around of a boss from our
studio audience, our digital studio audience, love to hear what
your thoughts are. Go ahead.
Speaker 9 (31:53):
I just think they're absolutely nuts to even consider this.
So nothing should surprise me with politics lately. But now
they were tried, they were sentenced, the sentence sticks. There's
there's a reason they were given the sentence they have.
(32:16):
I don't feel like paying for these people forever and
the Sonaya brothers. Simple solution. Sit them next to a
bomb like they built. Blow it up if they make
it okay, if they don't, you know, the brothers that left.
I mean, that's harse, But seriously, there's there's might be.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
Appropriate, would probably prevent cruel and and usual punishment of
the Eighth Amendment. No, what we're talking about here, and
this is this is interesting. In Massachusetts, in order to
get if you're convicted a murder in the first degree,
it means it means premeditation and deliberations. That it's it's
(33:02):
not a crime of passion. It's not a fight in
the bar room. Those are the sort of second degree
murder cases. This is like a contract killer. This is
somebody who says, well, I'm gonna you know, I need
to get someone because I need to kill a business partner,
I got to kill a spouse. These are the worst
of the worst. And now what happens is remember when
(33:25):
they got rid of the death penalty in Massachusetts. The
argument was, well, you know what, the death penalty is
too good for them because that way it gets them
out of here quickly. No, make them stay in prison
for the rest of their lives. They deserve that.
Speaker 9 (33:36):
Punishment, and that's the punishment.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
And now we're not Now they've changed.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Now they've changed the rules of the game. Now it's like,
wait a second, it's not fair to the inmate. They
have to give them hope that twenty five years you
now they might get a parole to heck with the
families who are gonna have to show up with the
parole hearing. It's just Massachusetts. It's this creep being progressive incrementalism.
(34:04):
They're never happy. Look what would stop some legislature a
few years from now to say or whatever. Say well, well,
twenty five years is a long time. Let's cut it
down to fifteen years, you know. And I was pointing
out that there was this guy in Norway. You hear
so many people say, well, you know, in Europe they're
(34:26):
much you know, it's a better criminal just system. No,
it isn't this guy in Norway that blew up a
bomb in Oslo, killed eight people and then went and
killed sixty nine kids at a summer camp, seventy seven
people in one day. He was sentenced to I think
it was twenty years in prison. He will get out
(34:47):
of prison in twenty thirty two because he committed this
crime in the summer of twenty eleven, and he is
up for a parole hearing in Norway. They turned him down,
thank god. But he's got a parole hearing ten years into.
Speaker 9 (35:02):
His sentence, ten years in.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
When you do the math, ten years in and oh,
by the way, when he showed up at the sentence,
he gave a Nazi salute. Oh yeah, I want that
guy out. Oh yeah. It doesn't.
Speaker 9 (35:22):
Know if there's some kind of doubt, you know, that's
one thing, but that I I just think they're absolutely
insane to even be talking about this. I would hope
you get a checking to do.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
If you get a chance over the weekend, check us
out Nightside of Demand. Listen to the nine o'clock hour.
I had a fellow one who's one of the lobbyistsuff
at the State House who supports this and it's a
more thorough review of it. Hey, Karen, thanks very much.
If you listen to night Side and you agree with
me in this, I want you as a frequent caller,
come on it.
Speaker 9 (36:00):
I listen all the time.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Thank you getting here and I need your voice. Thank
you much. Have a great night. Let me get Ken
and walthon. Ken you're next on Nights and I'm going
to be fascinating to know what you wanted to do
on this go ahead can.
Speaker 5 (36:11):
Be obviously I can't. Yeah, I wondered if there's the incrementalism,
if we're you know, the death penalty is taken away,
life without paroles taken away if we're taking away some
prosecutor tools for them to be able to, you know,
negotiate guilty. Please, you know, we can't hold these tougher
sentences against them and say you don't plead guilty to
(36:33):
a lesser crime.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
If we take one, that's a factor. No, that that's
a factor. It's a minu factor as far as I'm concerned,
because most of these folks who are looking at a
at a crime of life without parole, you know, they
know they're going down. And you know, but but again,
if that's off the table, maybe they'll, you know, give
me a second degree murder so I can be eligible
in fifteen years.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
Or life with parol. Right, So yeah, oh, I see
what you're saying though, if they're both taken off.
Speaker 8 (37:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (37:01):
The other thing I just wanted to bring up, I like,
you know, Leslie van Houton the Manson, Yeah, right, murderer
right at age nineteen. She was paroled at fifty three
years later, and I you know, just listening to her,
I mean, she just seems like an entirely different person.
And I certainly wasn't screaming up and down, going injustice.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
In Jen No, you know, I get you on that one.
But you know, tell tell me how you feel about
Sharon Kate Sharon Tate.
Speaker 5 (37:31):
Oh no, I'm with you. Know, I'm not necessarily saying
therefore we should.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
No, I understand. But but if you're going to involve
in a home invasion and then kill a pregnant woman
with her unborn child and others, and you know you
fell under the spell of this really bad guy Manson,
you know you did this. You know it wasn't like
(37:57):
you got caught deal in marijuana on Sunset's trip some night,
because you will. You know, this is a pretty serious crime.
I just don't. I don't have it in my heart.
I don't have it in my heart under.
Speaker 5 (38:08):
Your view, definitely, definitely she should not have been parole
in your view.
Speaker 2 (38:12):
Absolutely, you do it. You do it, you do it
under those circumstances, you know, if it.
Speaker 5 (38:18):
Was well and you know the reason I bring that
up just to throw that out there. And again I don't.
I don't have a super super strong opinion either way.
I mean, yep, I hear you just is you know
Bombering number two fifty three years from now to be
let out right if he I mean he same age
as Leslie van Houten, under the control of.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
His theoretically, yeah, theoretically yeah, would you? I mean he
knew what he was doing. He did it more dramatically
than she did. But she went in there that night
with text Ritter or whatever the heck. The kid's name
was Uh and Uh. They did the deed on the
instruction of Manson. So I guess I got a cold heart. Sorry.
Speaker 5 (39:02):
I think it's a tough, tough, tough question.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
I think I think it's Thanks, buddy, we'll talk. I
gotta I gotta scoot here. I got the eleven coming.
Thanks for calling in, Terry and on the cape. Terry,
I can only give you about ten seconds. You're really late,
Am I right or wrong? Just tell me quickly?
Speaker 10 (39:20):
Still right? But I'd like to add one more thing.
Every mass shooter that shoots in schools, et cetera, et cetera,
send them to Elsdalmador real quick and stop the nonsense.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
I'm with you, Terry. Thanks much. Maybe maybe the president
has an exception we could carve out. Thanks, Terry. We'll
talk soon. Okay, all right, twentieth hour coming up. I'm
not sure what we're gonna do. But remember hall passes
for everyone. If you've called this week, you can still
call in the twentieth hour back on night's side. After this.
Speaker 11 (39:50):
It's Jim from ACE Ticket.
Speaker 12 (39:51):
I know it would be so hard and confusing to
buy tickets to constant plays Boston Salvat's or a Red
Stars game or your favorite team.
Speaker 11 (40:00):
That's why Age ticket makes it easy.
Speaker 12 (40:02):
ACE has been Boston's trustworthy source for tickets since nineteen
seventy nine. We are located right here in Kenmore Square,
and we still answer our phones and provide friendly and
helpful customs service.
Speaker 11 (40:12):
And here's the best part.
Speaker 12 (40:14):
We provide that helpful service for free. We call it
service with no service fees. Yes, that's awesome.
Speaker 11 (40:20):
That's right at ACE ticket. Oup prices include fees.
Speaker 12 (40:23):
Unlike other websites, we don't try to fool you. We
provide upfront pricing. The first price you see is the
price you pay. So do yourself a favor next time
you treat yourself for someone special, Get the best seats
of the lowest prices and start paying fees.
Speaker 11 (40:38):
Buy local and saved.
Speaker 12 (40:41):
Call one eight hundred my seats a visit aceticket dot com.
Speaker 13 (40:44):
Hi, It's Taylor, your other other Interstate Batteries guy here
to let you know we've moved. Check out our new
retail location at to A Draper Street. Where find us
fast at Interstate Batteries dot com.
Speaker 14 (40:55):
Hey, this is Steve Anders. When was less time you
serviced your sumpump? Call the sumpump weeks at one eight
four four four three three five two two five Some
pump geeks dot Com.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
WBZ in Boston w XKSFM EHTY two Bedford and iHeartRadio station.
This is WBZ, Boston's news radio. We defining local news.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
Yeah, fifty seven degrees in Boston at eleven o'clock. Good evening.
Speaker 11 (41:28):
I'm Al Griffith and here's what's happening.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Well. The first week in the Karen Reid murder Reed
trial is in the books. Among the proceedings today, the
jury bust to the home in Canton where the body
of Reed's patrolman boyfriend John O'Keefe was found out in
the yard during a snowstorm.
Speaker 12 (41:44):
Now, she's accused of hitting him with her SUV and
leaving the scene while he lay in the snow and
then died from his injuries. Reid did not attend the
visit to the home today on Fairview Road, although she
was given permission to
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com