April 1, 2025 • 42 mins
In the case of Luigi Mangione, the man accused of murdering United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson last year in New York City, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed federal prosecutors to pursue the death penalty. Mangione faces state murder and terrorism charges in New York, along with federal murder and stalking charges. U.S. AG Bondi lifted the moratorium on federal executions back in February of this year. Do you think Luigi Mangione should receive the death penalty if found guilty of murder? What are your thoughts on capital punishment?
Attorney Harvey Silverglate joined in on the conversation with Dan this hour!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Attorney Harvey Silverglate joined in on the conversation with Dan this hour!
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 (00:01):
It's Night with Dan Ray. I'm telling you Boston Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right. My thanks to Jim Roosevelt, and my thanks
to the to the callers. Everybody tonight complied with my
request and that gave more people an opportunity to ask questions.
And that's what we tried to do here at Nightside,
when we get people who really have an expertise in
(00:29):
an area. So now I want to change topics, and
I want to talk about a decision that was made
today by the new Attorney General, Pam BONDI. I think
all of us remember the shocking crime of last December
(00:51):
when this individual, young guy who graduated from the University
of Pennsylvania, so not somebody who didn't have much education,
decided to take it upon himself to kill and an
(01:12):
individual who was walking on the streets of New York.
I think everyone remembers it. I kind of imagine anyone
doesn't under doesn't remember what happened in Manhattan, Midtown Manhattan
when Luigi Mangioni allegedly fired a shot or maybe more
(01:34):
than one shot into the back of you that Healthcare
CEO Brian Thompson. Thompson was this was early in the morning.
If you remember, six thirty in the morning, and he
took Brian Thompson's life. He was on the run for
about five days and he was eventually captured. If you recall,
(01:55):
he was eating his breakfast at a McDonald's in El Tuna, Pennsylvania.
He had planned it. It was clearly premeditated. There's no question.
It was not a you know, a crime of passion.
And so today the Attorney General, citing the fact that
(02:20):
the moratorium on the federal death penalty, which had been
established by the former Attorney General Merrick Garland, has on
February fifth, had been that mortuary was lifted. And so
now if you find yourself on death row in the
(02:43):
federal system, you can be executed now, according to Bondi,
and she she spoke today about this. She spoke generally
about it, and I want to play that for you
because it's a general comment that she released a day
(03:07):
or so ago. This is cut number twenty five, Rob.
If this is the Attorney General Pam Bondy I'm talking about,
let me just finish that, Rob. Let me set it
up here, talking about the return of the federal death penalty,
federal death penalty.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
On the violent crime level. Thanks to President Trump's directive,
we are seeking the death penalty again. So all of
these horrible, violent criminals that you're hearing about around the country,
they will face the death penalty federally within our country.
And the drug dealers need to get out of here
because we are coming after you. We're going to have
ninety four great US attorneys around this country and everyone
(03:45):
will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Thank you, Thank you, President.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
Is that your directive.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
I couldn't have said that better. That's very good. It's
been a fantastic job. Thanks Now, pretty clear today the
US Attorney General directed federal prosecutors to seek the death
penalty against Luigi Manjoni. Now, I'd love to hear from
(04:12):
as many of you as possible on this. There are
many crimes homicides for which the death penalty probably is inappropriate.
I have a very limited view of the use of
the death penalty, and I suspect that some of you
(04:34):
have a broader view of it. Some of you might
agree with me. My view and the death penalty, which
was influenced by my coverage of my work on the
Salvadi Lamoni case, in which those men, innocent men were tried,
and a couple, actually I think it was two were
(04:55):
sentenced to the death penalty to two of the six
who were who were convicted, two of the four, excuse me,
who were convicted, and two of them died in prison.
But my attitude and the death penalty is if if
the evidence proves not only but beyond a reasonable doubt,
(05:20):
but beyond a sentilla of doubt. And the phrase scintilla
of doubt is a phrase that does have legal meaning.
It means absolutely, without question, without question, that the individual
actually committed this crime, and there are aggravating circumstances. I
(05:44):
then have a You, friends of mine, have an absolutist
view that the state has no right to take the
life of anyone. My view is a little different, and
I'd love to know what you think. I think if
you look at the Lewis Man's the only case unless
(06:04):
they can prove that this guy was insane, and I
don't think that an insanity event, the defense would be
successful here at all at all. He planned, he plotted this,
he wrote notes about it. When he was arrested five
days later, there was inculpatory evidence that he had and
(06:27):
it's overwhelming evidence. And it's also he did it in
such a way, which was it would it would terrorize people.
I mean, this is not someone who got into an
argument with someone on the street and somebody had a
knife and someone had a gun and tempers flared. This
was a cold calculated murder, shooting the guy in the back.
So that's my position on it. I see my good
(06:49):
friend Harvey Silverglade as called in, and so I'm going
to take Harvey because I know that Harvey may very
well disagree with me on this, and I respect his opinion,
but I want to get his point on this, and
then we'll get to phone calls. The only lines that
are open is one at six one seven, two five, four,
ten thirty and a couple at six one seven nine
three thirty. Let me go to my friend Harvey Silverglate. Harvey,
(07:14):
I would be interested on this one. I know that
you are pretty close to an absolutist, if not an
absolutist on the death.
Speaker 4 (07:21):
I am an absolutist, and can I give you the reason?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Absolutely, there is bound to be a case in which
an innocent person is convicted. I know you say in
this case, you know it's absolutely obvious. But I can
give you a couple of cases where it was not
so obvious, or it was obvious and it turned out
(07:47):
of innocent. The National the Innocence Project has now uncovered
somebody who has executed who is demonsterbly innocent. They have
been looking for such a case for decades and they
found all that.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
I'm not, by the way, I'm looking forward to reading that.
I because I've always been able to say to you know,
folks like you, friends of mine and others who maybe
aren't friends, show me the case. Now. Do I think
that there have been cases in the past that that
that existed. I suspect so. But when I frame it
that way, and I'd love you to address it for
(08:23):
me as a lawyer, I'm simply saying, no sentilla of doubt.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Dan, in life, there is no such thing. I had
a case once in which two uh twins, you know,
what do you call them? Matching twins? They were they
were from one egg in which the wrong twin was identified.
(08:56):
There is no such thing in life as absolute certainty.
And that is the problem I have a well, the
I have no moral It's not a moral issue at all.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I understand, nor is it a religious issue, and there
are there are people are religious, right.
Speaker 4 (09:16):
I understand that it's a practical issue, that there are
cases in which the prosecution is certain and then it
turns out years later you have people who have served
thirty year senses and then it turns out they're innocent.
The innocent project has made a whole career.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Well. I certainly am familiar with one of those cases, Harvey,
as you know. But that was the case where corrupt
FBI agents along with a criminal informant, uh, they allowed
him to lie in the witness stand. They encouraged him
to lie in the witness stand. Let me come back
if I could, and I just and let me take
a quick break, and then let's resume this conversation and
(09:57):
then we'll work some callers in here as well, and
we'll see. I just I'm past my break. I'll come
back and we'll just have a couple of minutes at it,
and then we'll get to phone calls. My guest is
Harvey Silverglade, who I'm always delighted when he joins me,
either through invitation or calling. And we're going to have
a debate about the death penalty. And I think Harvey
(10:20):
will lay out his case very effectively. I would love
to hear from as many of you as possible, but again,
we're going to do it in a in as as
pleasant to form as we can, talking about a very
difficult subject. Back on night Side, the only lines open
right now, six one, seven nine. Back on night Side
right after.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
This night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
My guest is Harvey Silverglay, who was kind enough to
call in and Uh, we will get to phone calls,
I promise. But Harvey makes the case that there is
never a set of circumstances that can be without a doubt,
beyond scintilla of doubt. Okay, I I don't want to
(11:11):
conceive that point, But for the purpose of conversation, let
me run a case by you that I think is
a case where this no cintillar tout. And that is
the doctor Phillip case in Connecticut a few years ago,
where these two guys went into the house, tied the
husband up in the basement, UH, tied two young girls
to a bed. I took the wife to a local
(11:35):
bank to make a withdrawal. She was able to communicate
through her I guess just her eyes with the teller
who she knew to call the police. When they got
back to the house, they doused the girls in the bed,
in their beds with gasoline, lit the beds on fire.
The house was in flames. Uh, these bombs ran from
(11:56):
the house. They had raped the two girls, they had
rape the wife, and they had killed the two girls.
And to me, Harvey, if there ever was post demand
for the it was these two. And that's why I'm
so when I say, not a scintilla of doubt, not
(12:17):
no question whatsoever, you just don't think that. And it
would it would mean that there might be instead of
one hundred people executed in the country over a period
of time, that maybe five would be executed. But they
would be the most most deserving of that.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
So I just need to take I agree with you
that case. I agree with you, except the one thing
that there are cases where people are absolutely certain. I
think I mentioned I represented any fellow who had an
identical twin, and the I put the the identical twin
(12:58):
rather than a descendant of the stand and the agent
identified that is a one who would have seldom drugs.
There is in life nothing is certain, except that's in taxes.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
But but you you would admit that that was a
decision that a brilliant lawyer.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
You.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
When I say took advantage, I mean utilized a situation
that is very hardly probably has only happened once in
your career. And by no, I.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
Say absolutely didn't. There are three cases in which in
which I've had similar situations.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Okay, okay, but but identical twins, three sets of identical twins.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
No, no, No, cases in which it was it seemed
to be certain and it turned out it was not certain.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Okay, fair enough. But what I'm saying is there are cases,
which is the Connecticut case and such as any doubt
in your mind that this kid Mangione is the killer
of Gary Thompson, Brian Thompson.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Excuse me, there is no doubt in my mind. The
problem is that cases arise in which you say there
is no doubt in my mind where it turns out
you're wrong. Okay, they are rare, but the putting okay
in this in person to death makes the system, in
(14:31):
my view, not viable.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
And by the way, I'm going to agree with you
that I want to concede that point. But my question
is when you add in to the the the element
of aggravating circumstances. I mean, if if this kid had
gotten into an argument with Thompson as he was walking
into that hotel and pulled out a gun and shot him,
(14:54):
to me, that would be different. This kid stalked him.
This kid planned it. He was waiting there for this guy.
He knew he was going into that hotel. They somehow
he must have had an inside source. I think to
know exactly when this guy was walking in a hotel,
walked across the street. There was there Not only was
premeditation and deliberation, there was there was planning for weeks
(15:18):
on this. And anyway, I'm not going to convince you
I know that, but I am.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
I am not going to take the bait. My argument
is that you're too good a lawyer to do that.
It's an institutional issue, and there is bound to be
an innocent person who has put it. If it matters
to you, If it matters to you the innocent person
(15:46):
put to death, you have to oppose the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Okay, it does matter, it does matter.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
It's obvious. But I have had three cases, is I know,
in which the defendants guilt was obvious and it turned
out that it was not so obvious.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Were they were? They? Were they homicide cases? Were they
they capital cases?
Speaker 4 (16:11):
We homicide? They were homicide cases.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
But not capital camber.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
The Louise Woodward Remember the Louise Woodward case.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Oh sure maybe, but but that was not going to
be a capital That was not a capital case.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
That's such as Massachusetts did not have the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Right right, I understand, I do understand. I think that
there was a lot of doubt in that case, which
you raised successfully. I covered that case. That was really
where I think we found a friendship in that and
we had known each other for a long time, but
I so admired the way you conducted yourself in that case. Okay,
let let's go to phone call. See what people say.
(16:51):
I don't want to make it a popularity contest. I
just my view on on the death penalty changed as
a result of the Solvani case, and I think I've
talked to you about that. But I still think that
it is legitimate to send a message to some people
who would do this in the way in which Mangioni
(17:12):
did it, in the way in which these creeps in
Connecticut did it to this family, which was even I
mean on the scale, I would put the guys in
Connecticut away, even before it put MANGIONI away. They were
the poster children or the poster boys for the death penalty.
We will take go ahead.
Speaker 4 (17:30):
Of your institutional issue. It's not an individual case issue.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
I understand your point, I understand your quiet. I'm saying
that I guess what I would argue is within the
context of the institution the death penalty, which has existed
for a long time in common law and in British
and American law. I would I would limit it. I
would maintain it as an institutional device, but I would
(18:00):
limit its use. Uh incredibly. But I do understand your argument.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
And there are a lot of things that have lasted
a long time. Burning witches lasted for quite a while.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
No, I just stand. I just stand. But but but
I do. There's a lot look slavery lasted a long time.
Slavery still exists today in many parts of the world.
I agree with that, But I think your position, And
again I I understand that I'm not arguing with him,
just trying to make my case on And there are
friends of mine who have religious viewpoints or philosophical viewpoints
(18:37):
that the state under no circumstances, which I assume yours
is not a religious viewpoint, but I assume that that
there's there's a there's an underpinning philosophical foundation to your
position which you characterize.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
There's a there's a broad religious, moral and ethical precept
about executing innocent people. And since it's inevitable, inevitable that
the death penalty, a death penalty system will at one
point executed innocent that makes it unacceptable to me.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Okay, I understand, although it's interesting to note that the
innocence project has struggled for some time. I would say
probably for twenty years that a minimum, maybe longer to
present one case to present to find the case that
they truly would present as a case of actual innocence.
(19:34):
And that was at a time when the death penalty
was used much more pardon the use of the word here,
much more liberally, much more expansively than it has been
in recent years. So take a break. My guest is
Harvey Silverglate. Feel fringed again. We can have a legitimate, positive,
professional conversation with the callers, and we'll get to you
(19:57):
right after the newscast. At the bottom of the hour.
My name's Dan Ray. This is Nightside with my friend
and in many many cases a mentor to me, Harvey
Silverglake will be back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on waz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Sorry, my guest is Harvey Silverglade. I think I've laid
out my case. I think that he's laid out his case. Harvey.
Let me ask you the tough question, the toughest. Let's
assume that at the end of World War Two Hitler
had somebody survived and we know what he did. Would
there be an exception for Hitler?
Speaker 4 (20:39):
No, because I think when you're making an exception, Dad,
somebody will always come up with a case say well,
it's just like Hitler, and it turns out it really isn't.
An institutional issue, is not an individual decision. It's institutional.
I am opposed to that party in all cases, even
(21:02):
cases where I know your virtual certainty that the person
did it. It's institutional because there will always be a
case where we'll say, well, it's certain, and it turns
out it ain't so certain.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
All right, Harvey Silverglade, Let me get to phone calls.
People have been patient a lot of people waiting. Let
me go to Dot in Medford. Dot, I think I
know where you're going to be coming from. Say hi
to Harvey Silverglade and became to him.
Speaker 6 (21:31):
Hi, Harvey and Harvey. I love to listen to you.
I love the letters you write to the newspaper. I
keep very good track of you. But I have to
disagree about this one thing. I have to say. We
should have a firing squad on hand, and I'll tell
you Mangione and the Marathon Bama and the two monsters
(21:57):
from Connecticut, as well as the two brothers in California
who murdered the appearance in cold blood and then said
there was a lot of hanky panky going on. I
didn't believe them, but I think that you need a
firing squad on hand, and Minngione and the marathon bomber
(22:18):
should be upfront.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
I don't think Harvey's going to convince you to the contrary, Dot, Harvey,
I'll give you a chance to respond to our A
fan of yours, Dot and a fan of this program,
right ahead, Harvey.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
Well, yeah, my argument is always the same. Yeah, you
can show me a case like the marathon bomber case
is certain. My argument against the desk of is institutional,
not dependent on any single case.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
All right, Dot, well, I think I think we've reached
what's called an impasse.
Speaker 6 (23:06):
Yes, I think so, but I think I'm on the
uh the right side of whatever.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
All right, but god, I appreciate your callers. All good night, cannight, Dot,
talk to you soon. Next up is Matt. Matt, you
were next on a nice side with Harvey silver Glike,
right ahead.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Matt, Sorr. How are doing, counselors? Hope everything's going good
so far? All right?
Speaker 7 (23:34):
All right, So here's what I'm here. Here's what I'm
gonna say. Let's say one name missus silver Glass.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
So Matt silver gleats, by the way, Harber some sort
of I'm picking up some radio signal or TV in
the background. Here is that? Does does anyone have a
TV or radio in the background?
Speaker 4 (23:57):
No, you hear it now?
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Not now? Not now? But I did here during dodge call.
Maybe it was that headed up. I don't know. Okay,
go right ahead, Matt.
Speaker 7 (24:10):
All right, So I completely and you know what I'm
gonna Actually, I'm gonna I'm gonna completely disagree with your view,
but I really respect excuse me, respect that you stand
on the principle that if it's for one.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
It's for all.
Speaker 7 (24:28):
So you Dan said Hitler, you got to say no,
it's an institutional problem, and that's your view, and you're
going to keep that uni matter what. You know, these
people in Connecticut who killed the Petits, you know, a
family homosore, Jeffki, you know, disgusting people. Now with someone
(24:55):
like Timothy McVeigh who's confessing to doing it, I think
on a federal level, there's gonna be so many more
obstacles that they can have to go against because many
people have recently been put to death on the state level,
the a couple of months ago via Shu you know,
(25:16):
firing squad, et cetera. And I think there's a level
of a capital crime, or you may you might call it,
you know, a national capital crime where there's something that
we just as the society cannot accept and the innocence
(25:37):
beyond the doubt is there. Like with Nick Vey, I
mean it was someone like that.
Speaker 4 (25:46):
He can.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
By the way, he wanted the death penalty, he dropped
his appeals. Correct, that's what I know.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
But no, I think I think no, I think you're
right on that. Let me ask you that, Harvey, if
a let's take it one step further. Let's assume with
Timothy McVeigh says, look, I did it. I want the
death penalty. Do you deprive him of that?
Speaker 4 (26:20):
Yes, you do for institutional reasons.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Okay, fair enough, Okay, that's fine, I got it. Go ahead, And.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
I respect that. I respect no, no, no, I respect that.
You know, like I'm going to disagree. You know, I
think he absolutely deserved it. You know, one one like
me may make the argument that because he wants it,
maybe him have been a younger man, maybe tortured more,
serving a longer sentence. But I respect that you stand
(26:54):
by your view no matter what. Now, the man the
only case, yeah, BONDI is saying you know we're gonna
do this, or that this is not going to be
an open and struck case. I mean, on that case,
it's he he is some cult following. I don't know
what it is, but he's got some cult following. I
(27:17):
cannot see how that will end up in a death
healty condition and the moratorium that's lifted. You know, there's
so many people that now need to be put ahead,
and I'll wrap up my thoughts with you know, someone
like even on the state levels, you know, really disgusting people,
(27:39):
you know, like people who make the polycap polyclass, you know,
Richard Allen Davis.
Speaker 4 (27:44):
Just people who.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
There, that's for sure. But again I think that Hobby
has defended his position. I thought the no, no, no, no,
I'm just thought the example that you're raised of McVeigh,
somebody who not only did it, ed to it. Uh.
And there were aggravating circumstances in the bombing of the
Oklahoma City building.
Speaker 7 (28:06):
This line I can think of.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
Yeah, no, that was who admitted it.
Speaker 7 (28:10):
Yeah, and they wanted to be by the kids. You know,
he getting an interview, and I'll leave it at this,
he get an interview with Ed. You know, I watched
this stuff. I was a child at the time. My
mother worked in at editor Bill be in Boston, and
you know, they evacuated them all across the country.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
No, we understand around the history of it. But I
got the other calls I got to go to. Yeah, yeah,
all right, thank you very much, appreciate your calls. We're
coming right back on Nightside. My guess is Harvey Silverglade
one line at six one, seven, two, five, four, ten
thirty and one line at six one seven, nine three
one ten thirty. Back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
Right after this, you're on night Side with Dan Ray
on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Okay, back to the calls for Harvey Silver, gonna go
next to We got Wayne in Brockton. Hey, Wayne, welcome back.
I haven't talked to you in a while. You're on
with Harvey Silverglake.
Speaker 8 (29:08):
Listen every night.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
I just don't call in much.
Speaker 9 (29:12):
So a couple of quick questions and a couple of
quick comments. What is And I don't need exacts, but
you guys will know more than most, including myself. What
is the average time someone waits on death.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Row before the execution? You said, I mean there was.
Speaker 9 (29:33):
Idea someone yeah, waiting on appeals and so forth.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
Years. It's years years at least.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
I would bet it's the average if I had to.
Speaker 9 (29:42):
Guess, and at the cost of millions to taxpayers.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
The process is expensive, no question.
Speaker 9 (29:51):
So I've always I mean, no law has passed if
you threatened death penalty to the perpetrator and and this
whole immediate family, no laws passed or ever going to
deter the mindset of certain criminals. So I've always been
for the Devil's Island approach. And now that we're putting
(30:14):
these immigrant criminals down in El Salvador.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
And I don't know have we had a relationship with them.
Is that a paid per the government.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Is paying I think about six million dollars, or maybe
it's six billion dollars. Harvey might know that better than
to house these individuals. The problem that we have is
with what you're going to go at immediately. Is the
Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment counselor.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Yes, yes, that is the reason the Massachusetts penalty was
that would the US between Court went along with that
for a while, and then conservative court came into power
and they changed their mind. I think that the Devil's
Island idea is a very good one.
Speaker 9 (31:01):
Yeah, it's like you never see the light of day again.
You'll be there and you'll be alive, but you'll just
lose contact with the world and everything. And then we
could do that at a reasonable costs and we'll hold on.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
I'm mister silver Gay Attorney Council Silver Glea is surprising
me here. Uh, you're okay with this even under the
Eighth Amendment. I know that he hasn't described specific specifics,
but it sounds to me like going to be put
in an island somewhere with with uh o God, Harve.
Speaker 4 (31:41):
You go ahead with other inmates, you're not totally alone,
and you spend the rest of your life there.
Speaker 9 (31:50):
And it's not exactly a Devil's Island.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
It's this place in El Salvado.
Speaker 9 (31:55):
Now that we have a relationship with them, I mean
it's somewhat you know, it's or and I they must have,
you know, certain protocols and certain regulations that these people
will be treated humanely.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
But just.
Speaker 9 (32:09):
You're out of our hair. You're not going to cast
our taxpayers, and you're not going to be you know,
in the court system for twenty years.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Okay, Well, I'm surprised that that Harvey silver Claver say
yes so that, But that's okay, made are we surprises me? Wayne?
That's an interesting proposal.
Speaker 4 (32:26):
Do I win a T shirt?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
No T shirts today? Way, you probably have won something asked.
I'm sure you have.
Speaker 4 (32:37):
My aunt still weares it. Take care, guys.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
I thanks thanks Wayne? Next up, Rob, he did he
was talking about Devil's Island. I guess the question is
how do you prevent people from getting off Devil's Island?
I I don't know.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
We want to comment on that, I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Okay, we've got to Robin Midford, rob next to Nitager, right.
Speaker 4 (33:07):
Ahead, Good evening, gentlemen.
Speaker 10 (33:10):
At first I did not want to agree with with Hobby,
thinking back to Saco and Vincente and and the highnessness
of this deliberate act premeditation. But life can be worse
than death, and and and and this kid is being
(33:36):
uh uhde made a hero in the public to be
kept away from that. I agree with the Devil's Island thing.
His life could be made miserable on a daily basis
and and be kept in seclusion away from all these lunatics.
And by the way, I think he's losing millions of
dollars in inheritance and to be living the life of
(33:58):
poverty and and like everyone else for a change. You know,
it's too bad this man in New York didn't have
a bulletproof backpack that we had for our children. Nowadays,
it's getting to.
Speaker 11 (34:10):
The point where you don't know that you can even
go out in public. And but then on the other hand,
what about sachem and VINCENTI put on public display with
the burn box in their.
Speaker 10 (34:24):
Heads on uh I.
Speaker 11 (34:26):
I I can't see making that mistake again, So that
life can be made.
Speaker 10 (34:31):
Worse than depth for these people and and and Doubles Island.
Speaker 11 (34:35):
That last caller was a great idea. I agree with Hovey,
and I agree with the last guy too.
Speaker 4 (34:41):
All right, So I want to point out one other thing.
If if an if an inmate who has spared the
death penalty Fund's life impossible to live. Remember Jeffrey Epstein
committed suicide, or at least we think we.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
We could open Harvey. Yeah, I don't know about that one,
but that's neither here. No, when you guys talk about
a Devil's Island, it's kind of interesting because I don't
know where you would put someone. I don't know where.
What would you give them to survive Harvey? Would you?
(35:20):
I assume that you'd have to give them the basics
of UH and and resupply the island every once in
a while. I mean it's yeah, you'd have to, you'd
have to do that, Yeah, I think so. Yeah, the
red roof rim isn't bad. Let's leave you at different
(35:43):
points in all of our lives. I think we've stated
a red R. Thank you, Rob, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Next up is John in Southborough with Harvey Silverglaate. John.
You were next on Nisager. Right ahead, Let's put John
on hold of Johnny there. Nope, if he's there, we'll
(36:07):
take him. If not, we'll put him on hold. In
the meantime, we will go to Warren in Fall River.
Speaker 10 (36:13):
Warren.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
You're next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (36:16):
Hey, Dan me I totally disagree with Harvey on this.
I mean, I like Harvey.
Speaker 12 (36:22):
Harvey is a cool guy, but you're wrong.
Speaker 8 (36:25):
This should be ten, twenty, whatever amount of criteria that
should go to determining whether someone should get the death penalty.
And in a lot of there are some out there
that are just meat that criteria and they need to
(36:45):
be put away. I'm also, I'm a tough on crime
kind of kind of guy. I'm also I also believe
that repeat criminals, after say ten times in front of
a judge should get a life sentence.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
Yeah. I think you'd have to probably define that a
little bit for Harvey in terms of you know, ten
ten for a parking ticket and jaywalking would be a
little bit different.
Speaker 8 (37:11):
No, No, I'm not talking about I'm not talking about
my friends like that. I'm talking about violin.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
Yeah, okay, violent crimes. So yeah, I think that probably
What about what what about that one? This is this
is kind of off topic, but I since says he
brought it up. What about someone who's repeat violent offender?
You know that you could have a child rape, You
could have well child rapist hopefully goes away period, but
you could have armed someone who likes to do armed
robberies or something. They tried the three strikes your outlaw,
(37:40):
but I think that has sort of gone the way
of the Dodo bird.
Speaker 4 (37:45):
Put him away for life.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
Okay, Harvey. Harvey can be tough on absolutely, Okay, Warren.
Speaker 12 (37:52):
Yeah, but I would also just want to add one
more thing, one more challenge to Harvey. What if that
who did the assassination attempt to Trump was just didn't
wasn't killed, Well, what would you give him they had
they had him dead to right?
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Okay? Okay? So yeah, so the attempted assassination of a
president at twenty year old, kid, I gotta tell you
in my world, and I don't care if it's Joe Biden,
Donald Trump, Barack Obama or whomever you're talking about changing
the course of history. I think you're looking at life
in prison without any possibility of parole.
Speaker 4 (38:32):
I agree with that. I agree with that, all.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Right, So so we get we get some agreement on
two points. Thanks, Thanks Warren, appreciate it. Let's keep rolling here,
let's go too. Uh was John and Sealthborough there when
we picked up. Okay, let's try it one more time.
Two strikes and you're out. John and Selthborough next on nights.
Speaker 4 (38:50):
I go ahead, John, Hey, Dan, Hey, Harvey. Thanks.
Speaker 5 (38:54):
I'd just like to say this has come up so
many times in discussions with folks about the death penalty,
and I totally agree with Harvey. It's where do you
draw the line? Right, Like, there's so many cases where
and there's where people think one person is guilty. There's
just somebody in Milford. I read when it was thirty
(39:14):
years in prison and Deathy didn't a crime, he did
not commit and was released because they found evidence. Yes,
there's cases that are really really clear cut. But on
the other hand, it's really tough. Way do you draw
that line? And the other point I have.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Is mine that I drew John, which Harvey rejects. Because
Harvey believes the institutional question is when it is not
just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond the scintilla a doubt,
and there are aggravating circumstances. And the example that I
use is this guy Luigi Mangioni. That was the case
that kicked off the conversation. So that's where I'm drawing
(39:55):
the line.
Speaker 5 (39:56):
I did hear that. You know, it's definitely a lot
logical argument. But again, it's like there's a fine line.
Where do you draw that line? These witnesses and they're
all crooked, and they say this person is guilty and
and so be it. But how would you like to
be that one innocent person that everybody thought was guilty?
(40:17):
I don't know, question, I have a question or point.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
You got to be quick. We got less than a
minute left here, John, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
Yeah, just one more thing. When when people are on
death row and somebody just brought this up a minute ago,
my understanding if it can cost more money for all
the appeals processed to keep them on death row than
you just put them in life in prison and they
suffer in prison for the rest of their life, is
that true? And I'll let you I'll let you.
Speaker 2 (40:43):
Go up to well, this is Yeah, it's tough to tell.
There's there's a cause. There certainly is a cost associated
with the appeals, but there's also a pretty substantial cost
to keep someone incarcerated for life in prison. So if
it's a twenty year old or a twenty five year
old and they have a life expected you fifty years,
I don't know. I've never seen the math done. It
(41:04):
depends upon the lawyers that you have, et cetera. Harvey,
you want to take a quick crack at that question.
Speaker 4 (41:14):
Well, I don't know what to say, Ed. You know,
my position is unchanged.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
No, No, I understand that position just on the balance
between the cost associated with the appeals, the endless appeals,
versus someone saying, look, it's not worth it to do
the appeals. We'll keep this twenty five year old who
has the life expectancy of sixty years in prison for
whatever it's it's tough to do that math in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
Yeah, it's tough, but I mean it's defensible, but it's tough.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Yeah, No, I understand. All right, John, appreciate you, Carl,
thank you very much, thank you. Sorry, going to get
you the first time. For those in the lines, stay there.
We'll talk about this in the next hour. Scott and
West Virginia, Paul in South Boston. Harvey is always, thank
you very much for your time. Thanks for calling in
and making it a much better hour since we had
the two different points, different points of ill, my friend,
(42:10):
everything else okay in your world, I hope.
Speaker 4 (42:13):
In the People's Republic of Cambras, everything is fine.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
My goodness. Harvey is always thank you for your friendship
and and your mentorship. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.
We'll talk again. We'll continue this into the next hour.
Feel free, We've got a couple of lines open. Join
the conversation.
It's Night with Dan Ray. I'm telling you Boston Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right. My thanks to Jim Roosevelt, and my thanks
to the to the callers. Everybody tonight complied with my
request and that gave more people an opportunity to ask questions.
And that's what we tried to do here at Nightside,
when we get people who really have an expertise in
(00:29):
an area. So now I want to change topics, and
I want to talk about a decision that was made
today by the new Attorney General, Pam BONDI. I think
all of us remember the shocking crime of last December
(00:51):
when this individual, young guy who graduated from the University
of Pennsylvania, so not somebody who didn't have much education,
decided to take it upon himself to kill and an
(01:12):
individual who was walking on the streets of New York.
I think everyone remembers it. I kind of imagine anyone
doesn't under doesn't remember what happened in Manhattan, Midtown Manhattan
when Luigi Mangioni allegedly fired a shot or maybe more
(01:34):
than one shot into the back of you that Healthcare
CEO Brian Thompson. Thompson was this was early in the morning.
If you remember, six thirty in the morning, and he
took Brian Thompson's life. He was on the run for
about five days and he was eventually captured. If you recall,
(01:55):
he was eating his breakfast at a McDonald's in El Tuna, Pennsylvania.
He had planned it. It was clearly premeditated. There's no question.
It was not a you know, a crime of passion.
And so today the Attorney General, citing the fact that
(02:20):
the moratorium on the federal death penalty, which had been
established by the former Attorney General Merrick Garland, has on
February fifth, had been that mortuary was lifted. And so
now if you find yourself on death row in the
(02:43):
federal system, you can be executed now, according to Bondi,
and she she spoke today about this. She spoke generally
about it, and I want to play that for you
because it's a general comment that she released a day
(03:07):
or so ago. This is cut number twenty five, Rob.
If this is the Attorney General Pam Bondy I'm talking about,
let me just finish that, Rob. Let me set it
up here, talking about the return of the federal death penalty,
federal death penalty.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
On the violent crime level. Thanks to President Trump's directive,
we are seeking the death penalty again. So all of
these horrible, violent criminals that you're hearing about around the country,
they will face the death penalty federally within our country.
And the drug dealers need to get out of here
because we are coming after you. We're going to have
ninety four great US attorneys around this country and everyone
(03:45):
will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Thank you, Thank you, President.
Speaker 4 (03:50):
Is that your directive.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
I couldn't have said that better. That's very good. It's
been a fantastic job. Thanks Now, pretty clear today the
US Attorney General directed federal prosecutors to seek the death
penalty against Luigi Manjoni. Now, I'd love to hear from
(04:12):
as many of you as possible on this. There are
many crimes homicides for which the death penalty probably is inappropriate.
I have a very limited view of the use of
the death penalty, and I suspect that some of you
(04:34):
have a broader view of it. Some of you might
agree with me. My view and the death penalty, which
was influenced by my coverage of my work on the
Salvadi Lamoni case, in which those men, innocent men were tried,
and a couple, actually I think it was two were
(04:55):
sentenced to the death penalty to two of the six
who were who were convicted, two of the four, excuse me,
who were convicted, and two of them died in prison.
But my attitude and the death penalty is if if
the evidence proves not only but beyond a reasonable doubt,
(05:20):
but beyond a sentilla of doubt. And the phrase scintilla
of doubt is a phrase that does have legal meaning.
It means absolutely, without question, without question, that the individual
actually committed this crime, and there are aggravating circumstances. I
(05:44):
then have a You, friends of mine, have an absolutist
view that the state has no right to take the
life of anyone. My view is a little different, and
I'd love to know what you think. I think if
you look at the Lewis Man's the only case unless
(06:04):
they can prove that this guy was insane, and I
don't think that an insanity event, the defense would be
successful here at all at all. He planned, he plotted this,
he wrote notes about it. When he was arrested five
days later, there was inculpatory evidence that he had and
(06:27):
it's overwhelming evidence. And it's also he did it in
such a way, which was it would it would terrorize people.
I mean, this is not someone who got into an
argument with someone on the street and somebody had a
knife and someone had a gun and tempers flared. This
was a cold calculated murder, shooting the guy in the back.
So that's my position on it. I see my good
(06:49):
friend Harvey Silverglade as called in, and so I'm going
to take Harvey because I know that Harvey may very
well disagree with me on this, and I respect his opinion,
but I want to get his point on this, and
then we'll get to phone calls. The only lines that
are open is one at six one seven, two five, four,
ten thirty and a couple at six one seven nine
three thirty. Let me go to my friend Harvey Silverglate. Harvey,
(07:14):
I would be interested on this one. I know that
you are pretty close to an absolutist, if not an
absolutist on the death.
Speaker 4 (07:21):
I am an absolutist, and can I give you the reason?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Absolutely, there is bound to be a case in which
an innocent person is convicted. I know you say in
this case, you know it's absolutely obvious. But I can
give you a couple of cases where it was not
so obvious, or it was obvious and it turned out
(07:47):
of innocent. The National the Innocence Project has now uncovered
somebody who has executed who is demonsterbly innocent. They have
been looking for such a case for decades and they
found all that.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
I'm not, by the way, I'm looking forward to reading that.
I because I've always been able to say to you know,
folks like you, friends of mine and others who maybe
aren't friends, show me the case. Now. Do I think
that there have been cases in the past that that
that existed. I suspect so. But when I frame it
that way, and I'd love you to address it for
(08:23):
me as a lawyer, I'm simply saying, no sentilla of doubt.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Dan, in life, there is no such thing. I had
a case once in which two uh twins, you know,
what do you call them? Matching twins? They were they
were from one egg in which the wrong twin was identified.
(08:56):
There is no such thing in life as absolute certainty.
And that is the problem I have a well, the
I have no moral It's not a moral issue at all.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I understand, nor is it a religious issue, and there
are there are people are religious, right.
Speaker 4 (09:16):
I understand that it's a practical issue, that there are
cases in which the prosecution is certain and then it
turns out years later you have people who have served
thirty year senses and then it turns out they're innocent.
The innocent project has made a whole career.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Well. I certainly am familiar with one of those cases, Harvey,
as you know. But that was the case where corrupt
FBI agents along with a criminal informant, uh, they allowed
him to lie in the witness stand. They encouraged him
to lie in the witness stand. Let me come back
if I could, and I just and let me take
a quick break, and then let's resume this conversation and
(09:57):
then we'll work some callers in here as well, and
we'll see. I just I'm past my break. I'll come
back and we'll just have a couple of minutes at it,
and then we'll get to phone calls. My guest is
Harvey Silverglade, who I'm always delighted when he joins me,
either through invitation or calling. And we're going to have
a debate about the death penalty. And I think Harvey
(10:20):
will lay out his case very effectively. I would love
to hear from as many of you as possible, but again,
we're going to do it in a in as as
pleasant to form as we can, talking about a very
difficult subject. Back on night Side, the only lines open
right now, six one, seven nine. Back on night Side
right after.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
This night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
My guest is Harvey Silverglay, who was kind enough to
call in and Uh, we will get to phone calls,
I promise. But Harvey makes the case that there is
never a set of circumstances that can be without a doubt,
beyond scintilla of doubt. Okay, I I don't want to
(11:11):
conceive that point, But for the purpose of conversation, let
me run a case by you that I think is
a case where this no cintillar tout. And that is
the doctor Phillip case in Connecticut a few years ago,
where these two guys went into the house, tied the
husband up in the basement, UH, tied two young girls
to a bed. I took the wife to a local
(11:35):
bank to make a withdrawal. She was able to communicate
through her I guess just her eyes with the teller
who she knew to call the police. When they got
back to the house, they doused the girls in the bed,
in their beds with gasoline, lit the beds on fire.
The house was in flames. Uh, these bombs ran from
(11:56):
the house. They had raped the two girls, they had
rape the wife, and they had killed the two girls.
And to me, Harvey, if there ever was post demand
for the it was these two. And that's why I'm
so when I say, not a scintilla of doubt, not
(12:17):
no question whatsoever, you just don't think that. And it
would it would mean that there might be instead of
one hundred people executed in the country over a period
of time, that maybe five would be executed. But they
would be the most most deserving of that.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
So I just need to take I agree with you
that case. I agree with you, except the one thing
that there are cases where people are absolutely certain. I
think I mentioned I represented any fellow who had an
identical twin, and the I put the the identical twin
(12:58):
rather than a descendant of the stand and the agent
identified that is a one who would have seldom drugs.
There is in life nothing is certain, except that's in taxes.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
But but you you would admit that that was a
decision that a brilliant lawyer.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
You.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
When I say took advantage, I mean utilized a situation
that is very hardly probably has only happened once in
your career. And by no, I.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
Say absolutely didn't. There are three cases in which in
which I've had similar situations.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Okay, okay, but but identical twins, three sets of identical twins.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
No, no, No, cases in which it was it seemed
to be certain and it turned out it was not certain.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Okay, fair enough. But what I'm saying is there are cases,
which is the Connecticut case and such as any doubt
in your mind that this kid Mangione is the killer
of Gary Thompson, Brian Thompson.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Excuse me, there is no doubt in my mind. The
problem is that cases arise in which you say there
is no doubt in my mind where it turns out
you're wrong. Okay, they are rare, but the putting okay
in this in person to death makes the system, in
(14:31):
my view, not viable.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
And by the way, I'm going to agree with you
that I want to concede that point. But my question
is when you add in to the the the element
of aggravating circumstances. I mean, if if this kid had
gotten into an argument with Thompson as he was walking
into that hotel and pulled out a gun and shot him,
(14:54):
to me, that would be different. This kid stalked him.
This kid planned it. He was waiting there for this guy.
He knew he was going into that hotel. They somehow
he must have had an inside source. I think to
know exactly when this guy was walking in a hotel,
walked across the street. There was there Not only was
premeditation and deliberation, there was there was planning for weeks
(15:18):
on this. And anyway, I'm not going to convince you
I know that, but I am.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
I am not going to take the bait. My argument
is that you're too good a lawyer to do that.
It's an institutional issue, and there is bound to be
an innocent person who has put it. If it matters
to you, If it matters to you the innocent person
(15:46):
put to death, you have to oppose the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Okay, it does matter, it does matter.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
It's obvious. But I have had three cases, is I know,
in which the defendants guilt was obvious and it turned
out that it was not so obvious.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Were they were? They? Were they homicide cases? Were they
they capital cases?
Speaker 4 (16:11):
We homicide? They were homicide cases.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
But not capital camber.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
The Louise Woodward Remember the Louise Woodward case.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Oh sure maybe, but but that was not going to
be a capital That was not a capital case.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
That's such as Massachusetts did not have the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Right right, I understand, I do understand. I think that
there was a lot of doubt in that case, which
you raised successfully. I covered that case. That was really
where I think we found a friendship in that and
we had known each other for a long time, but
I so admired the way you conducted yourself in that case. Okay,
let let's go to phone call. See what people say.
(16:51):
I don't want to make it a popularity contest. I
just my view on on the death penalty changed as
a result of the Solvani case, and I think I've
talked to you about that. But I still think that
it is legitimate to send a message to some people
who would do this in the way in which Mangioni
(17:12):
did it, in the way in which these creeps in
Connecticut did it to this family, which was even I
mean on the scale, I would put the guys in
Connecticut away, even before it put MANGIONI away. They were
the poster children or the poster boys for the death penalty.
We will take go ahead.
Speaker 4 (17:30):
Of your institutional issue. It's not an individual case issue.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
I understand your point, I understand your quiet. I'm saying
that I guess what I would argue is within the
context of the institution the death penalty, which has existed
for a long time in common law and in British
and American law. I would I would limit it. I
would maintain it as an institutional device, but I would
(18:00):
limit its use. Uh incredibly. But I do understand your argument.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
And there are a lot of things that have lasted
a long time. Burning witches lasted for quite a while.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
No, I just stand. I just stand. But but but
I do. There's a lot look slavery lasted a long time.
Slavery still exists today in many parts of the world.
I agree with that, But I think your position, And
again I I understand that I'm not arguing with him,
just trying to make my case on And there are
friends of mine who have religious viewpoints or philosophical viewpoints
(18:37):
that the state under no circumstances, which I assume yours
is not a religious viewpoint, but I assume that that
there's there's a there's an underpinning philosophical foundation to your
position which you characterize.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
There's a there's a broad religious, moral and ethical precept
about executing innocent people. And since it's inevitable, inevitable that
the death penalty, a death penalty system will at one
point executed innocent that makes it unacceptable to me.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Okay, I understand, although it's interesting to note that the
innocence project has struggled for some time. I would say
probably for twenty years that a minimum, maybe longer to
present one case to present to find the case that
they truly would present as a case of actual innocence.
(19:34):
And that was at a time when the death penalty
was used much more pardon the use of the word here,
much more liberally, much more expansively than it has been
in recent years. So take a break. My guest is
Harvey Silverglate. Feel fringed again. We can have a legitimate, positive,
professional conversation with the callers, and we'll get to you
(19:57):
right after the newscast. At the bottom of the hour.
My name's Dan Ray. This is Nightside with my friend
and in many many cases a mentor to me, Harvey
Silverglake will be back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on waz Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Sorry, my guest is Harvey Silverglade. I think I've laid
out my case. I think that he's laid out his case. Harvey.
Let me ask you the tough question, the toughest. Let's
assume that at the end of World War Two Hitler
had somebody survived and we know what he did. Would
there be an exception for Hitler?
Speaker 4 (20:39):
No, because I think when you're making an exception, Dad,
somebody will always come up with a case say well,
it's just like Hitler, and it turns out it really isn't.
An institutional issue, is not an individual decision. It's institutional.
I am opposed to that party in all cases, even
(21:02):
cases where I know your virtual certainty that the person
did it. It's institutional because there will always be a
case where we'll say, well, it's certain, and it turns
out it ain't so certain.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
All right, Harvey Silverglade, Let me get to phone calls.
People have been patient a lot of people waiting. Let
me go to Dot in Medford. Dot, I think I
know where you're going to be coming from. Say hi
to Harvey Silverglade and became to him.
Speaker 6 (21:31):
Hi, Harvey and Harvey. I love to listen to you.
I love the letters you write to the newspaper. I
keep very good track of you. But I have to
disagree about this one thing. I have to say. We
should have a firing squad on hand, and I'll tell
you Mangione and the Marathon Bama and the two monsters
(21:57):
from Connecticut, as well as the two brothers in California
who murdered the appearance in cold blood and then said
there was a lot of hanky panky going on. I
didn't believe them, but I think that you need a
firing squad on hand, and Minngione and the marathon bomber
(22:18):
should be upfront.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
I don't think Harvey's going to convince you to the contrary, Dot, Harvey,
I'll give you a chance to respond to our A
fan of yours, Dot and a fan of this program,
right ahead, Harvey.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
Well, yeah, my argument is always the same. Yeah, you
can show me a case like the marathon bomber case
is certain. My argument against the desk of is institutional,
not dependent on any single case.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
All right, Dot, well, I think I think we've reached
what's called an impasse.
Speaker 6 (23:06):
Yes, I think so, but I think I'm on the
uh the right side of whatever.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
All right, but god, I appreciate your callers. All good night, cannight, Dot,
talk to you soon. Next up is Matt. Matt, you
were next on a nice side with Harvey silver Glike,
right ahead.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Matt, Sorr. How are doing, counselors? Hope everything's going good
so far? All right?
Speaker 7 (23:34):
All right, So here's what I'm here. Here's what I'm
gonna say. Let's say one name missus silver Glass.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
So Matt silver gleats, by the way, Harber some sort
of I'm picking up some radio signal or TV in
the background. Here is that? Does does anyone have a
TV or radio in the background?
Speaker 4 (23:57):
No, you hear it now?
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Not now? Not now? But I did here during dodge call.
Maybe it was that headed up. I don't know. Okay,
go right ahead, Matt.
Speaker 7 (24:10):
All right, So I completely and you know what I'm
gonna Actually, I'm gonna I'm gonna completely disagree with your view,
but I really respect excuse me, respect that you stand
on the principle that if it's for one.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
It's for all.
Speaker 7 (24:28):
So you Dan said Hitler, you got to say no,
it's an institutional problem, and that's your view, and you're
going to keep that uni matter what. You know, these
people in Connecticut who killed the Petits, you know, a
family homosore, Jeffki, you know, disgusting people. Now with someone
(24:55):
like Timothy McVeigh who's confessing to doing it, I think
on a federal level, there's gonna be so many more
obstacles that they can have to go against because many
people have recently been put to death on the state level,
the a couple of months ago via Shu you know,
(25:16):
firing squad, et cetera. And I think there's a level
of a capital crime, or you may you might call it,
you know, a national capital crime where there's something that
we just as the society cannot accept and the innocence
(25:37):
beyond the doubt is there. Like with Nick Vey, I
mean it was someone like that.
Speaker 4 (25:46):
He can.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
By the way, he wanted the death penalty, he dropped
his appeals. Correct, that's what I know.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
But no, I think I think no, I think you're
right on that. Let me ask you that, Harvey, if
a let's take it one step further. Let's assume with
Timothy McVeigh says, look, I did it. I want the
death penalty. Do you deprive him of that?
Speaker 4 (26:20):
Yes, you do for institutional reasons.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Okay, fair enough, Okay, that's fine, I got it. Go ahead, And.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
I respect that. I respect no, no, no, I respect that.
You know, like I'm going to disagree. You know, I
think he absolutely deserved it. You know, one one like
me may make the argument that because he wants it,
maybe him have been a younger man, maybe tortured more,
serving a longer sentence. But I respect that you stand
(26:54):
by your view no matter what. Now, the man the
only case, yeah, BONDI is saying you know we're gonna
do this, or that this is not going to be
an open and struck case. I mean, on that case,
it's he he is some cult following. I don't know
what it is, but he's got some cult following. I
(27:17):
cannot see how that will end up in a death
healty condition and the moratorium that's lifted. You know, there's
so many people that now need to be put ahead,
and I'll wrap up my thoughts with you know, someone
like even on the state levels, you know, really disgusting people,
(27:39):
you know, like people who make the polycap polyclass, you know,
Richard Allen Davis.
Speaker 4 (27:44):
Just people who.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
There, that's for sure. But again I think that Hobby
has defended his position. I thought the no, no, no, no,
I'm just thought the example that you're raised of McVeigh,
somebody who not only did it, ed to it. Uh.
And there were aggravating circumstances in the bombing of the
Oklahoma City building.
Speaker 7 (28:06):
This line I can think of.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
Yeah, no, that was who admitted it.
Speaker 7 (28:10):
Yeah, and they wanted to be by the kids. You know,
he getting an interview, and I'll leave it at this,
he get an interview with Ed. You know, I watched
this stuff. I was a child at the time. My
mother worked in at editor Bill be in Boston, and
you know, they evacuated them all across the country.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
No, we understand around the history of it. But I
got the other calls I got to go to. Yeah, yeah,
all right, thank you very much, appreciate your calls. We're
coming right back on Nightside. My guess is Harvey Silverglade
one line at six one, seven, two, five, four, ten
thirty and one line at six one seven, nine three
one ten thirty. Back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
Right after this, you're on night Side with Dan Ray
on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Okay, back to the calls for Harvey Silver, gonna go
next to We got Wayne in Brockton. Hey, Wayne, welcome back.
I haven't talked to you in a while. You're on
with Harvey Silverglake.
Speaker 8 (29:08):
Listen every night.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
I just don't call in much.
Speaker 9 (29:12):
So a couple of quick questions and a couple of
quick comments. What is And I don't need exacts, but
you guys will know more than most, including myself. What
is the average time someone waits on death.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Row before the execution? You said, I mean there was.
Speaker 9 (29:33):
Idea someone yeah, waiting on appeals and so forth.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
Years. It's years years at least.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
I would bet it's the average if I had to.
Speaker 9 (29:42):
Guess, and at the cost of millions to taxpayers.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
The process is expensive, no question.
Speaker 9 (29:51):
So I've always I mean, no law has passed if
you threatened death penalty to the perpetrator and and this
whole immediate family, no laws passed or ever going to
deter the mindset of certain criminals. So I've always been
for the Devil's Island approach. And now that we're putting
(30:14):
these immigrant criminals down in El Salvador.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
And I don't know have we had a relationship with them.
Is that a paid per the government.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Is paying I think about six million dollars, or maybe
it's six billion dollars. Harvey might know that better than
to house these individuals. The problem that we have is
with what you're going to go at immediately. Is the
Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment counselor.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Yes, yes, that is the reason the Massachusetts penalty was
that would the US between Court went along with that
for a while, and then conservative court came into power
and they changed their mind. I think that the Devil's
Island idea is a very good one.
Speaker 9 (31:01):
Yeah, it's like you never see the light of day again.
You'll be there and you'll be alive, but you'll just
lose contact with the world and everything. And then we
could do that at a reasonable costs and we'll hold on.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
I'm mister silver Gay Attorney Council Silver Glea is surprising
me here. Uh, you're okay with this even under the
Eighth Amendment. I know that he hasn't described specific specifics,
but it sounds to me like going to be put
in an island somewhere with with uh o God, Harve.
Speaker 4 (31:41):
You go ahead with other inmates, you're not totally alone,
and you spend the rest of your life there.
Speaker 9 (31:50):
And it's not exactly a Devil's Island.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
It's this place in El Salvado.
Speaker 9 (31:55):
Now that we have a relationship with them, I mean
it's somewhat you know, it's or and I they must have,
you know, certain protocols and certain regulations that these people
will be treated humanely.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
But just.
Speaker 9 (32:09):
You're out of our hair. You're not going to cast
our taxpayers, and you're not going to be you know,
in the court system for twenty years.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Okay, Well, I'm surprised that that Harvey silver Claver say
yes so that, But that's okay, made are we surprises me? Wayne?
That's an interesting proposal.
Speaker 4 (32:26):
Do I win a T shirt?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
No T shirts today? Way, you probably have won something asked.
I'm sure you have.
Speaker 4 (32:37):
My aunt still weares it. Take care, guys.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
I thanks thanks Wayne? Next up, Rob, he did he
was talking about Devil's Island. I guess the question is
how do you prevent people from getting off Devil's Island?
I I don't know.
Speaker 4 (32:58):
We want to comment on that, I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Okay, we've got to Robin Midford, rob next to Nitager, right.
Speaker 4 (33:07):
Ahead, Good evening, gentlemen.
Speaker 10 (33:10):
At first I did not want to agree with with Hobby,
thinking back to Saco and Vincente and and the highnessness
of this deliberate act premeditation. But life can be worse
than death, and and and and this kid is being
(33:36):
uh uhde made a hero in the public to be
kept away from that. I agree with the Devil's Island thing.
His life could be made miserable on a daily basis
and and be kept in seclusion away from all these lunatics.
And by the way, I think he's losing millions of
dollars in inheritance and to be living the life of
(33:58):
poverty and and like everyone else for a change. You know,
it's too bad this man in New York didn't have
a bulletproof backpack that we had for our children. Nowadays,
it's getting to.
Speaker 11 (34:10):
The point where you don't know that you can even
go out in public. And but then on the other hand,
what about sachem and VINCENTI put on public display with
the burn box in their.
Speaker 10 (34:24):
Heads on uh I.
Speaker 11 (34:26):
I I can't see making that mistake again, So that
life can be made.
Speaker 10 (34:31):
Worse than depth for these people and and and Doubles Island.
Speaker 11 (34:35):
That last caller was a great idea. I agree with Hovey,
and I agree with the last guy too.
Speaker 4 (34:41):
All right, So I want to point out one other thing.
If if an if an inmate who has spared the
death penalty Fund's life impossible to live. Remember Jeffrey Epstein
committed suicide, or at least we think we.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
We could open Harvey. Yeah, I don't know about that one,
but that's neither here. No, when you guys talk about
a Devil's Island, it's kind of interesting because I don't
know where you would put someone. I don't know where.
What would you give them to survive Harvey? Would you?
(35:20):
I assume that you'd have to give them the basics
of UH and and resupply the island every once in
a while. I mean it's yeah, you'd have to, you'd
have to do that, Yeah, I think so. Yeah, the
red roof rim isn't bad. Let's leave you at different
(35:43):
points in all of our lives. I think we've stated
a red R. Thank you, Rob, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Next up is John in Southborough with Harvey Silverglaate. John.
You were next on Nisager. Right ahead, Let's put John
on hold of Johnny there. Nope, if he's there, we'll
(36:07):
take him. If not, we'll put him on hold. In
the meantime, we will go to Warren in Fall River.
Speaker 10 (36:13):
Warren.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
You're next on Nightside.
Speaker 8 (36:16):
Hey, Dan me I totally disagree with Harvey on this.
I mean, I like Harvey.
Speaker 12 (36:22):
Harvey is a cool guy, but you're wrong.
Speaker 8 (36:25):
This should be ten, twenty, whatever amount of criteria that
should go to determining whether someone should get the death penalty.
And in a lot of there are some out there
that are just meat that criteria and they need to
(36:45):
be put away. I'm also, I'm a tough on crime
kind of kind of guy. I'm also I also believe
that repeat criminals, after say ten times in front of
a judge should get a life sentence.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
Yeah. I think you'd have to probably define that a
little bit for Harvey in terms of you know, ten
ten for a parking ticket and jaywalking would be a
little bit different.
Speaker 8 (37:11):
No, No, I'm not talking about I'm not talking about
my friends like that. I'm talking about violin.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
Yeah, okay, violent crimes. So yeah, I think that probably
What about what what about that one? This is this
is kind of off topic, but I since says he
brought it up. What about someone who's repeat violent offender?
You know that you could have a child rape, You
could have well child rapist hopefully goes away period, but
you could have armed someone who likes to do armed
robberies or something. They tried the three strikes your outlaw,
(37:40):
but I think that has sort of gone the way
of the Dodo bird.
Speaker 4 (37:45):
Put him away for life.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
Okay, Harvey. Harvey can be tough on absolutely, Okay, Warren.
Speaker 12 (37:52):
Yeah, but I would also just want to add one
more thing, one more challenge to Harvey. What if that
who did the assassination attempt to Trump was just didn't
wasn't killed, Well, what would you give him they had
they had him dead to right?
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Okay? Okay? So yeah, so the attempted assassination of a
president at twenty year old, kid, I gotta tell you
in my world, and I don't care if it's Joe Biden,
Donald Trump, Barack Obama or whomever you're talking about changing
the course of history. I think you're looking at life
in prison without any possibility of parole.
Speaker 4 (38:32):
I agree with that. I agree with that, all.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Right, So so we get we get some agreement on
two points. Thanks, Thanks Warren, appreciate it. Let's keep rolling here,
let's go too. Uh was John and Sealthborough there when
we picked up. Okay, let's try it one more time.
Two strikes and you're out. John and Selthborough next on nights.
Speaker 4 (38:50):
I go ahead, John, Hey, Dan, Hey, Harvey. Thanks.
Speaker 5 (38:54):
I'd just like to say this has come up so
many times in discussions with folks about the death penalty,
and I totally agree with Harvey. It's where do you
draw the line? Right, Like, there's so many cases where
and there's where people think one person is guilty. There's
just somebody in Milford. I read when it was thirty
(39:14):
years in prison and Deathy didn't a crime, he did
not commit and was released because they found evidence. Yes,
there's cases that are really really clear cut. But on
the other hand, it's really tough. Way do you draw
that line? And the other point I have.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Is mine that I drew John, which Harvey rejects. Because
Harvey believes the institutional question is when it is not
just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond the scintilla a doubt,
and there are aggravating circumstances. And the example that I
use is this guy Luigi Mangioni. That was the case
that kicked off the conversation. So that's where I'm drawing
(39:55):
the line.
Speaker 5 (39:56):
I did hear that. You know, it's definitely a lot
logical argument. But again, it's like there's a fine line.
Where do you draw that line? These witnesses and they're
all crooked, and they say this person is guilty and
and so be it. But how would you like to
be that one innocent person that everybody thought was guilty?
(40:17):
I don't know, question, I have a question or point.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
You got to be quick. We got less than a
minute left here, John, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
Yeah, just one more thing. When when people are on
death row and somebody just brought this up a minute ago,
my understanding if it can cost more money for all
the appeals processed to keep them on death row than
you just put them in life in prison and they
suffer in prison for the rest of their life, is
that true? And I'll let you I'll let you.
Speaker 2 (40:43):
Go up to well, this is Yeah, it's tough to tell.
There's there's a cause. There certainly is a cost associated
with the appeals, but there's also a pretty substantial cost
to keep someone incarcerated for life in prison. So if
it's a twenty year old or a twenty five year
old and they have a life expected you fifty years,
I don't know. I've never seen the math done. It
(41:04):
depends upon the lawyers that you have, et cetera. Harvey,
you want to take a quick crack at that question.
Speaker 4 (41:14):
Well, I don't know what to say, Ed. You know,
my position is unchanged.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
No, No, I understand that position just on the balance
between the cost associated with the appeals, the endless appeals,
versus someone saying, look, it's not worth it to do
the appeals. We'll keep this twenty five year old who
has the life expectancy of sixty years in prison for
whatever it's it's tough to do that math in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
Yeah, it's tough, but I mean it's defensible, but it's tough.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Yeah, No, I understand. All right, John, appreciate you, Carl,
thank you very much, thank you. Sorry, going to get
you the first time. For those in the lines, stay there.
We'll talk about this in the next hour. Scott and
West Virginia, Paul in South Boston. Harvey is always, thank
you very much for your time. Thanks for calling in
and making it a much better hour since we had
the two different points, different points of ill, my friend,
(42:10):
everything else okay in your world, I hope.
Speaker 4 (42:13):
In the People's Republic of Cambras, everything is fine.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
My goodness. Harvey is always thank you for your friendship
and and your mentorship. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.
We'll talk again. We'll continue this into the next hour.
Feel free, We've got a couple of lines open. Join
the conversation.
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.