April 25, 2025 • 39 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? Daniel Delaney of Delaney Policy Group, a lobbyist for the bill, joined us to discuss.
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 (00:01):
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBSY Boston's new video.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, welcome back everyone. My name is Dan Ray,
and we are now entering the nine o'clock hour on Nightside,
and this is the hour when we get into some
of the issues and topics of the day. And yesterday
I noticed an article at the State House News Service
written by Sam Drysdale, and it's about an effort in
(00:29):
Massachusetts to eliminate life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I think most of you who know me.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Know that I am very critical of something like that.
But I said to my producer today, there's a fellow
named Dan Delaney of the Delaney Policy Group or Daniel Delaney,
I should say, who is lobbying for the bill? I said,
why don't we invite him on and we can talk
about it. Whatever his point of view is, he supports
this points of view always welcome here. So first of all,
(01:00):
let me welcome Daniel Delaney of the Delaney Policy Group
to Nightside. Daniel Delaney, you prefer Daniel or Dan?
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Dan is perfect? Okay, Well I'm in trouble when I
hear Daniel.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
So that's pretty much the way I grew up too,
by the way, so I can identify with what you're saying.
So your group is Delaney Policy Group, and you are
a lobbying group, so your lobbying for this bill. Have
you been up at the state House a long time?
It looks as if you've been there for a while.
Speaker 5 (01:32):
I have.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
I first got to the state House as a legislative
aid back in two thousand, worked in the state House
for a while, worked for some nonprofits, worked for five
years of the Department of Public Health as their legislative liaison,
and then back in twenty twelve, hung my own shingle
(01:53):
and started the Delanney Policy Group.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Okay, good for you.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
So just for garification, because they never want to make
an assumption here, we'll get into the substance of this
piece of legislation. But this is not you're not a
hired gun here. It looks to me from what I read,
is that you believe in this. You may you're you're
hired as a lobbyist, but it's not that you say, hey,
(02:18):
I don't care what side of the issue. It sounds
to me like you support this piece of legislation.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Absolutely absolutely support this legislation and happy to talk about it.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Sure, perfect, Okay, So so you know that I'm on
the other side of the issue, but I want to
give you every opportunity to explain it. What what is
the benefit of this legislation. I can understand the benefit
to people who find themselves facing a life without parole sentence,
(02:48):
feel free to talk about that. But what is the
benefit to the to the survivors? And often these are
murder cases in Massachusetts. As I'm sure you know, what
is the benefit to the surviving family members of the
victims and also to the con Wealth of Massachusetts. You know, again,
you don't have to give me a long presentation, but
(03:10):
I'm sure you can hit some of the high points,
just as the advocate of this tell us, tell us
why you supported well, I.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
Mean, I support it because I think that that it's
important for the common Wealth to make sure to on
a regular basis sort of revisit old assumptions and old
policy positions. You know, when I think about the reasons
people go to jail, they typically roll out, you know,
(03:37):
three different kinds of criteria. You know, one is the terrence,
one is for punishment, and one is to enhance public safety.
And so when I think of folks who've been in
jail for twenty five or more years. We know because
the data shows that at the public safety risk it's
(03:59):
greatly reduced. I think, and you may not agree, but
I think, you know, the the deterrent effect sort of
at the margins, I don't think is is that impactful.
But I think the you know, the benefit for for
the commonwealth is saving commonwealth funds and expenses that are that,
(04:27):
particularly when you have elderly or sick inmates, that can
be exorbitant. We have over seventeen or we have nearly
a thousand men and women serving life without parole, and
you know, it costs one hundred and twenty seven thousand
dollars a year per inmate just to house them, and
(04:47):
if they're if they're sick, that can easily triple.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
So there's a.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
Cost savings on that side. On the side of sort
of the survivors and the and the families, every every
family who has been struck by the tragedy of homicide
feels it differently and processes it differently. But but I
know from sort of the people that I've worked with,
(05:12):
there are a large number of folks who, after a
certain period of time feel that feel better having interacted
with with the person who had caused harm for their
family and being able to sort of process it and
put it and put it aside and move on with
their life. That's definitely not the case for everyone. And
(05:35):
that's but every every surviving family or every surviving you know, friend, acquaintance,
loved one has their own individuality in the way that
they interact with it. And what this bill does is
offer the opportunity for the parole board to assess after
(05:56):
twenty five years, what's in the best interest of the commonwealth.
Is it in the best interest for you know, this
person to remain incarcerated, or is it in the best
interests for the Kamwalt for this person to go out,
not be a burden on the commwalth at the expense
level that you would be being in concert incarcerated, and
try to re enter society in a productive way.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Okay, well, a couple of things real quickly, you use
what I would consider to be a bit of a euphemism, Dan,
and that as you refer to someone who caused harm
to their family. There's a lot of people who get harmed,
you know, by crime. You know, someone breaks into their home,
they they steal some money, or they're they're the victims
(06:41):
of a robbery or their car stolen. That's causing harm
to the family. But in order to get a life
sentence without parole in Massachusetts, you have to have done
a lot of harm and probably taken the life of
a loved one. So I think again, I view that
the phrase caused harm to the family. That strongly understates
(07:03):
what people receive life sentences without parole here in Massachusetts.
For what I want to do is I want to
take a quick break. I just wanted to mention that
to you because I understand you made a really nice
presentation deterrens punishment, public safety. I get all of that,
and I want to address the points you made, and
I want to give you an opportunity to respond. And
(07:25):
I got to take a quick break here. So let
me reintroduce you Daniel Delaney of the Leny Policy Group.
Dan Delaney is lobbying on behalf of a bill that
would eliminate the life sentences without the possibility of parole
here in Massachusetts. I disagree with him, and I want
to get this up on people's radars. If you want
(07:47):
to ask Dan a question or make a comment. I'm
going to open up phone lines six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six one, seven, nine, three, one ten thirty.
I will again, you know, advise you as with any
guest on my program, they're the equivalent of a guest
in my home. And you can ask, however, tough questions
you want, make whatever statement you want, but I would
ask you again keep it, keep it professional, and be respectful.
(08:11):
That's the only rule we have here on Nightside. As
Dan and I will probably I hope be able to
do the same. So we'll be back with Dan Delaney
a question about whether or not Massachusetts should eliminate life
in prison sentences without the possibility of parole. My name
is Dan Ray. This is Nightside. Will be right back.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
You're on Nightside with Dan Ray ONBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
My guess is Dan Delaney. He is a lobbyist. He
runs a group called the Delaney Policy Group on Beacon
Hill and he is lobbying on behalf of a piece
of legislation that if an actor, would eliminate life without
parole in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Dan, just a quick.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Response for me to your very articulate presentation just before
the commercial break, and that is I disagree. I remember
when the death penalty was eliminated here in Massachusetts by
a single vote of the legislature back earlier this century,
and one of the arguments that is always used to
(09:14):
eliminate the death penalty. And by the way, I'm someone
who has had some experience in the criminal justice system
working on behalf and getting out people who have been
intentionally and wrongfully convicted for a murder that they never
were involved with in any way, shape or form. So
I understand that their mistakes are made sometimes. And on
(09:35):
the death penalty, my view is very specific that I
support it when it is applied to someone for whom
there is no scintilla of doubt about their guilt, and
I think about the Boston bombers as an example, and
when there are serious, aggravating circumstances. So I would apply
the death penalty a very limited fashion. But those who
(09:57):
oppose the death penalty always say, oh no, it's better
to put someone away for the rest of their life
without the possibility of parole. The death penalty is an
easy way out, So that argument was used in Massachusetts.
Put them away, block up the key that's the toughest
penalty we can give them. That's what they deserve to
eliminate the death penalty. Now, the same folks, and I'm
(10:20):
not saying you, but the same folks who are on
that side of the issue is saying, let's get rid
of life without parole. So my question is, what's next.
We get rid of any imprisonment, we just you know,
give them timeouts. I mean, these there's a lot of
people who do not belong to be amongst you know,
(10:40):
there are a lot of bad people in this world,
and I just don't understand the mindset that would say
on some you know, I can cite ten twenty fifty
one hundred horrible crimes than.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
You could as well.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
I want to put people away and lock them up
because they need they do what they need to understand that, yeah,
there's deterrence here. You're never going to kill anyone else.
The only other person you could kill would be a
prison guard. And you're going to be punished because the
act was so horrific, and that public safety will be
better with having these people away. And I don't really care,
(11:14):
you know that, you know what age they are, obviously
people who are seventy are less likely to engage in
violent crime from a testosterone point of view than people
in their twenties.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
I think I would agree with you on that.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So it just seems to me that the push from
the political left is always to be better and kinder
and gentler with criminals, even the worst criminals, with less
concern about victims. I'll give you a quick chance to
respond to that. Then I want to go to phone calls.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Sure, I'm sure, and I appreciate, I appreciate the question.
I appreciate the work that you've done on behalf of
folks who've been wrongfully convicted.
Speaker 6 (11:50):
But I'll cut.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Right to the point.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
I think that if you look at who's on the
proll board and who's going to be evaluing evaluating these cases.
If I have my way and this law, this bill
saales soon, and it's bading it to a law exactly
as it's written, you still have a group of well trained,
expert people who've spent decades working with prisoners on parole
(12:18):
or probation to evaluate whether or not he, you know
he or she, even though they've murdered someone, it should
be released on parole and all all that this Bill
is asking for, is that option for the evaluation. So
we're not saying twenty six years is too long, everyone
needs to get out of jail after twenty five years.
(12:38):
We're saying that at twenty five. At twenty five years,
it's worth seeing whether the person is changed, whether they're
the understanding of the crime has changed, and whether they
whether this evaluation can take place and be freed. I
(12:59):
don't I don't imagine that if there was a parole
review board that the marathoner bombers would get out because
you know, their crime wasn't horrible enough. So I think
I think that to me, that's a bit of a
red herring to say we're going to let everybody out now.
If what you want to say is, oh.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
I'm not saying and I understand, I'm not saying they're
going to let everybody out. I'm simply saying, there are
certain crimes that are so horrific that when a sentence
of life in prison without parole, it should it should remain.
The death penalty was removed in large part in this
Commonwealth because people said, make them serve their life in
(13:40):
prison without parole. That was the argument. Now the same
folks progressive people who fought against the death penalty give
them credit for their efforts. Are basically abandoning that argument
and saying, well, now, let's give them a chance. Let's
at least give them a chance after twenty five years.
And I think that that there are certain crime tis
(14:00):
that there are crimes for which they should be imprisonment
for life without PAROLEA Are you familiar with the Phillips case,
the doctor Phillips case in Connecticut?
Speaker 4 (14:13):
No?
Speaker 3 (14:13):
No, okay, well that's the case real quickly.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
It was a doctor and a wife and two children.
The family was a home invasion. These two career criminals
tied the husband up, kept him in the cellar so
he could not help his family, raped the wife, raped
the daughters, tied the daughters to their bed, took the
wife to the hospital to make a financial withdrawal from
(14:37):
a bank. One of them stayed at the house. One
accompanied her to the bank. Somehow, some way, she was
able to communicate with the teller that she needed help.
The tell her, you know, called police after she they
had left the bank. By time they got home and
were in the house, police arrived. And these two guys
knew that they were trapped inside the house. So their
(14:58):
response was the doubts the beds of the little girls
with gasoline, light them on fire, killing them and killing the.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Wife so there would be no witnesses.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
They apparently forgot about doctor Phillips in the basement, and
they fled from the house and were caught red handed.
I mean, I don't want some people who did something
like that even to have a scintilla of hope that
they could ever get out of prison. I would put
them in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives.
That wasn't an eighth Amendment, Dan, there are people in
(15:32):
our society who do not deserve that sort of consideration.
I know you're speaking with a kind and a good heart,
but I'm speaking on what I think is the reality
that there are some crimes. You know, you would disagree
with me that I would have put those guys in
the electric chair because of what they did, no scintilla
(15:52):
of doubt about the crime, right and certainly horrific aggravating circumstances.
They didn't have to kill those two little girls to death,
tied in their bed to start a house fire. So
let's get someone, Let's get some phone calls and see
what you and I are not going to agree.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
I'm not gonna commence, no.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
No, no no.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
I think we'd have to spend a long time for
and for me to move you or to But this
is a serious topic because it does talk about, you know,
the place in which we live. I got a minute
left if you want to respond to that, to to
those to the examples that I just mentioned, these phymes
with is no doubt, no doubt of of of the guilt,
(16:36):
not a scintilla of doubt of the guilt that's not
beyond a reasonable doubt, not a scintilla. And there are
aggravating circumstances. Then there are cases I can cite for
you here in Massachusetts, uh and around the country that
are like this, go ahead, Well.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
I would say, I would say too quick thing to
that one, I would I would say that the kind
the very the people that you are speaking of will
commit those kind of heinous crimes are unlikely to be
deterred by the fact that I'm going to get out
in twenty five years instead of staying in for forty years.
Like I think for that kind of person who has
(17:14):
no moral compass, I don't think the deterrent effect is
it's reasonable to expect someone who could do something so
heinous is going to be staying up to date on
what the current sentencing statutes are and the marginal gains
whether you get a parole review or not.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
And the other one that family going to a parole
review twenty five years from now under any circumstances.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
The victims.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
I'm speaking of the victims now, because you know that
after twenty five years, they're going to want that parole review,
even if they know they have no hope of getting parole.
Speaker 7 (17:46):
No, that's that.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
I mean the role of the victims of surviving family members.
I mean that absolutely has to be taken seriously. I've
I don't every family is unique.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
How they're you know, I feel like their pain is
beyond something I could imagine. And I don't see.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
The moving the needle.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
Much one way and the other. But but every family has.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
That family's going to have to go.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Now, if let us say in the family that I described,
let's say that there were some younger children who were
four or five who were staying, who are still survived,
who somehow survived.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Who were at home when this this horrific event occurred.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
These type of animals are going to want their parole
review because they're going to want to what's going to
give them a few days, are going to give them
a ride out of the prisons of the parole board
or whatever. Uh, And the family's going to want to
go there and have to confront them twenty five years later.
Let's do this, Dan, I gotta I think our positions
are pretty clear. I got phone calls. I want to
(18:57):
get to people. The only line that I have open.
We got a bunch of phone calls. Everyone's going to
be polite to you. Don't worry about it. You're you're you're.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Amongst friends here, even though we think you're crazy on this.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Okay, don't worry about it. It will take phone calls
sixty Again, I emphasized the people maintained the night the
night Side standard of civility six one, seven, nine. Those
are the only two lines available right now. We got Liz,
Jim and William and Baltimore coming up right after the break.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
It's Night Side with Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
All right, my guess is Dan Delaney. Dan is a lobbyist, uh,
and he is lobbying on behalf of a piece of
legislation which would eliminate UH in Massachusetts, the penalty of
life in prison without parole, which is by the way,
given primarily to people who have convicted who are being
(19:57):
have been convicted of murder in the first degree. It's
an obligate, gatory sentence that judges are required to hand down.
And Dan's kind enough to spend some time with us tonight,
so you can direct your questions to him. Your comments. Again,
we asked you be polite. Let's start it off with
gonna go first off to Liz in Walpole. Liz, you
are first tonight on Nightsig go right ahead, Rome with
(20:17):
Dan Delaney.
Speaker 8 (20:20):
Thank you, Dan, I appreciate you thanking my call. And
that's two comments for Dan de Lady. Number one, I
think in your presentation, by coming up with the justifications
for the consideration of pardon after twenty five years, with
the economic cost of keeping somebody incarcerated, it can be
(20:45):
twisted very quickly to a really.
Speaker 9 (20:47):
Telling argument in favor of the death penalty. So I
think that's not the reason to.
Speaker 8 (20:53):
Approach the finance as the supporting argument. The other thing
is a question of forgiveness and as Fan has pointed out,
having the family members surviving after a horrific murder twenty
five years previously is I would think cruel and unusual punishment.
Speaker 9 (21:15):
So therefore, perhaps.
Speaker 8 (21:18):
The solution is to keep the law the way it.
Speaker 9 (21:21):
Is, and that the individual perpetrator, having been converted converted
death predicted, first see if he can find a moral
solution through prayer to the deities of his choice.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
Daniel response, Well, I mean I think that.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Certainly FORGIVENESSES is an important component if any of these,
if any any of these reform measures are liable to occur,
And I do think that, I mean, I take heart
the importance of the convicted murderer needing to reflect and
(22:11):
whatever their spiritual tradition is on the harm that they've done.
I just don't find that that's incompatible with giving them
the option to have their sentence reviewed after twenty five years.
Speaker 9 (22:25):
All Right, Dan, I appreciate you responding similar option to
your victim.
Speaker 8 (22:31):
They de not their victim a twenty five year.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
What you're saying is that in the case of yeah,
what Liz is saying, it's yeah, Liz is saying in
a sense of murder, and most of the life in
prison without parole cases in Massachusetts are first degree murder cases.
They did not offer that opportunity for any sort of
judicial review or otherwise after a certain period of time.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Wells appreciate your call. I do, thank you very much, well.
Speaker 9 (23:04):
Said, thank you, breaking all. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
All right, thank you, have a great night. Let me
go to William in Baltimore, Maryland. William, you were next
on nice side.
Speaker 6 (23:13):
Dan.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
We've heard all over the country, by the way, so
don't be surprised with people call from different parts of
the country. William is a regular caller. William, welcome back.
How are you, sir?
Speaker 7 (23:23):
I'm playing?
Speaker 5 (23:23):
How you going? Dan? And uh?
Speaker 3 (23:25):
Do it great again? Ahead?
Speaker 7 (23:28):
Oh yeah, Dan, I mean yeah Dan, Dan and Dan? Yeah. Anyway,
look the way, William. The wave Massa Yeah. The wave
Massachusetts goes, so does Maryland.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Right.
Speaker 8 (23:38):
Uh.
Speaker 7 (23:38):
Here in Maryland does Bill sitting on the desk of
our governor called the second look at right. I don't
know if he's going to sign it yet, but they
talking about the same thing here in Maryland, where after
a person who does murder served twenty five years to
give them a second look, right, which is basically the
legislative time just ended here in April. But they were
(24:00):
arguing about it, back and forth about this building.
Speaker 5 (24:03):
And now the.
Speaker 7 (24:03):
Governor, he or Wes Moore, he wants to uh. I
think he got other aspirations. He hadn't signed it yet.
He's I guess he's wilding or whatever. Right, But I
feel like this. I always think about the victims and
these things. But I always say, because I watched a
lot of id and and Dan, that's family he was
talking about. I thought their name was Pettit, that'ster Pettit.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
But anyway, you're correct my mistake. Thanks William, you're one
of my best callers.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
It is the Pettance, not Phillips. Thank you very much.
I appreciate that that correction.
Speaker 7 (24:33):
Yeah, I remember that, Dan, and that was an awful story, right,
See people like that. I'm with you, Dank. Is this
a guy? And I don't care nothing about them being old,
sick or whatever. Right because the victims cannot get back up, Daniel,
I mean, dang, the victims can't get up. That's the
way I feel. I have a niece who's thirty years old.
(24:53):
She is a federal Parole and Probation officer. He in Maryland.
She's married with four children, her and her husband, and
she is thirty home visits. The other day she said,
do home visits? She said, every corole complains about She says,
she always complains about the conditions of the parole and
she wasn't the state corole and cobation officers. They're unarmed
in Maryland. But when she became a federal parole and
(25:16):
cobation officer, she's armed. But what it is is that
they don't even want them to call them parole and
probationers anymore. They have to call them clients. You know,
this woman has a master's degree, and you know, it's
just bibles in my mind, how they've turnted around to
treat these prisoners, you know, the treat the prisons, the
way they treat them, you know, And you say, it's
one hundred and seven thousand dollars same thing here in Maryland.
(25:39):
But I swear to Maryland. Sometimes I'm blind sometimes even
sit in here and listen to different things that's going
on in Massachusetts and what's going on here in Maryland,
and it parallels itself. So I think it's like following.
It's a trend in this country man, and I that
we just need to cheat these if these people are
painting as murderers like you said then in the Boston
strangler and the guy that killed the pet of family,
(26:01):
I have no mercy for these people. Man. They need
to be put to death, you know. And Dan, I
want to be respectful and I respect your opinion, but
I have a different opinion. Thank you, Darren. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
All right, Thanks, William, appreciate your calling. Let's keep let's
keep rolling here. Be well, my friend, be well. Let
me go next to Jim is in Revere, a little
closer to home. Jim and Revere your own Dan Delaney
of the Dan Delaney Policy.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Group, right ahead.
Speaker 10 (26:27):
Yeah, I'm with you Dan on on this?
Speaker 5 (26:32):
Which Which? Dan?
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Which?
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Dan?
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Jim?
Speaker 11 (26:34):
This?
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Jim.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
You've got Dan Delaney and Dan which one?
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Go ahead?
Speaker 10 (26:39):
I'm with you Dan, nice fact smoking down murders and stuff. Good.
They should bring back the death penalty. I mean, if
you don't want life with a p role, well, then
bring back to death. Because she talked about twenty five
years you remember why you can't It seems like it's
(26:59):
just I mean, that's Jim, Jim.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Jim do me a favor. I want you to talk
into your mouthpiece on your phone.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
It's I'm having a tough time hearing you, and I
want Dan to be able to hear you and potentially respond.
Just talk right into that mouthpiece, don't don't let it
drift away.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
Go ahead.
Speaker 10 (27:23):
Okay, sorry about.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
That, much better, much better?
Speaker 5 (27:26):
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (27:28):
So, anyways, like I said, twenty five years or nothing,
y two k seemed like it was yesterday. I mean,
life footow parole. I mean, I don't believe that either,
because if you did something that bad, we shouldn't be
giving you, you know, move over your head and meal
free meals for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
The argument was that you to get rid of the
death penal. The argument was, and I want Dan Delaney
to comment here because I don't want to want to
be fair, uh, was get rid of the death penalty.
And the argument was that all the people would take
the death penalty because that was the easy way out.
In point of fact, that was not true. The only
criminal that I know who had asked for the death
(28:08):
penalty once he was convicted was Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma
City bomber, and he instructed his lawyers to drop all appeals.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
Every other person who was.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
On death row fought at tooth and nail, whether they
survived or whether they were eventually executed. Dan, we've had
a couple of calls. Here is there you can comment
on what Jim has had to say, what William from
Baltimore has to say.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
I want to try to make this fair go ahead.
Speaker 4 (28:37):
Sure, I mean I think, you know, at the end
of the day, I think I think if you were
the person serving twenty five years, it's not a it's
not a short time. And I feel like all all
that what this bill is trying to do is like
(29:01):
like will said, this is a second look. Twenty five years.
Has anything changed in any of the circumstances that makes
the pro board, who is not led by a bunch
of you know, wild liberals, do they think that enough
has changed to make someone eligible to come back home
(29:23):
and re enter the community. And if they don't, think
if they think the crime is too heinous, or if
they think that, you know, the person has not has
not changed enough and they are still the same killers
they were twenty five years ago, then the person then
the person goes right back to incarceration. So I understand
the idea of wanting to say, hey, you know it,
(29:46):
it's a smoking gun, let's have the death penalty right away.
But we also know that even those absolutely certain cases,
people get wrong sometimes, or people get the context wrong.
Sometimes in Massachusetts, after you've been convicted, you can't talk
about mitigating circumstances. So there isn't a there isn't an
option to to tell a different story. And we feel
(30:10):
I feel personally and all the folks who are advocating for
this bill really are just pushing for you know, at
twenty five years, we think it's fair and appropriate to
look at the story again.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
My suspicion is that that if you're successful here Dan Delaney,
that twenty years from now, another talk show host, there'll
be there'll be successive groups to you who say, well,
let's make it twenty years of fifteen. Fifteen years is
a really long time I do. The thing is that
I keep coming.
Speaker 10 (30:40):
Fit sitt in families every time you even mentioned parole
or anything. We have to relive these things over and absolutely.
I just want to give you two quick examples. What
happened with nine to eleven. Right we went there, we
got so down we got them. It's over, the country's
at peace. Every time you match in the marathon thing,
(31:01):
we know he's still alive, and we relive it and
we suffer. This is what I'm saying. I mean, all right,
what happened nine to eleven, We think we got all
those people. Everybody's happy, everybody's at peace. But what happened
in Boston with the bombing, we relive it every year,
and those families will be at peace.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
No, never be a piece, Jim.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
I got to run here, okay because I'm past my break,
But thank you for your call. We'll be back. We
have a concluding segment coming up with Dan Delaney. He
would like to eliminate life without parole in Massachusetts. I disagree.
So far, my listeners have feel free to join the conversation.
We have pretty full lines. Only one line open. We'll
carry this conversation into the next hour. Six point seven
(31:43):
thirty is the one line that's opened. Back on Nightside
right after.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
This, It's Night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
My guest is Dan Delaney of the Delaney Policy Group.
He is lobbying in favor of a piece of legislation
which would eliminate life without parole here in Massachusetts. I'm
going to go real quickly to Jim in Hyde Park. Jim,
you were next on Niksacer right ahead, Hi Dad, I.
Speaker 12 (32:09):
Had to tune in on this conversation. And to mister Delaney,
bless his heart, I strongly disagree. I think life without
parole is substantial. It's a second chance. They should be
(32:33):
glad to get life without parul. I just think of it.
What if it was one to mother, father, sister, brother.
They can't come back, regardless of the second circumstances, whether
it's first degree or tenth degree murdered, those people can't
come back. And they are getting three hots and a
(32:57):
cot every day. Some can go out and enjoy the
sunshine and some may be locked up.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
But I think I think they all have to get Jim.
I think they all have to get you know, they
cannot be treated badly, meaning they you know, if they misbehave.
I think they can get some solitary but I believe
that they have to get some outdoor recreation activity.
Speaker 12 (33:22):
You a grieve with that, But to eliminate this order
is outrageous. In my opinion. I do believe in forgiveness
and that is forgiveness because they skip the electric chick.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Thank you, Dad, Thanks Jim. You said it very well.
I hope you could become more of a frequent call
of hero at nights.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
I enjoyed it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Let me go to defense lawyer Harvey Silverglade. Harvey, want
to get you in here. You're wrong with Dan Delaney.
I'm going to be really interested to see what you
think about this issue.
Speaker 6 (34:00):
I am opposed to life without parole for the same
reason that I'm opposed to capital punishment. Okay, I know
how imperfect the system is and how many mistakes are made. Now,
so somebody's going to say to me, yeah, but there
are some cases in which you're sure, you know you
(34:20):
have it on film. Blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 11 (34:23):
The problem is that when you make exceptions, it's the
exceptions is start to eat up the rule, and eventually
an innocent person is going to be executed, or an
innocent person is going to be sentenced to life without parole.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Tarvey, you know I respect and understand the argument. I
understand it more strongly for the for the death penalty argument.
If we carry your argument to a logical extreme, we
might say, under no circumstances should we sentence anyone to prison,
because theoretically we could be sentencing.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
Again.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
You might argue it's reductor, I'd absurd them. But you
sent to some eight ten years and they're innocent, You've
taken ten years of their life, as they has happened
in the Sovati case. And they were able because they
were alive to argue their case, and the compensation was
was significant, but it certainly did not replace the years
that they lost in prison.
Speaker 6 (35:20):
The problem is that you are going to sentence somebody
to life without parole who is innocent. It's inevitable, it's
some insurance. Happened and it will happen again.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
So what is the minimum and what's the minimum? What's
the minimum sentence?
Speaker 3 (35:37):
You would you would.
Speaker 6 (35:38):
Support well, lifeless paroles, okay, but at parole.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
The parole harvey, as you know, is not a matter
of fact. The person in order to be paroled, for
the most part, has to admit guilt. Parole does not
say to someone you're innocent. They could become a choir
boy in prison. I don't know that that qualifies them
to be released. Obviously, if we get rid of life
without parole. That's going to increase that possibility. This is
(36:13):
one we're going to disagree on, my friend, and I
always have to reconsider my thoughts when I disagree with
you on anything. So you've said it well, Dan Delaney,
You've got the best advocate you could possibly have.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Here, Harvey.
Speaker 4 (36:31):
Thank you, Harvey.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
Right, good night, Thanks Harvey, talk soon, good night. Let
me get very quickly here, going to get Paul in Boston.
In Paul, you were next all night, secho, right.
Speaker 5 (36:40):
Ahead, Yes, good evening, missus Laney. Are you representing any
group or any individual? Is your company been retained for
uh for a feed for the.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Yeah, Paul. By the way, we straightened that out early.
He's representing or organizations, and I believe also members of
the legislature, And I asked him whether or not they were,
whether he was, I asked him if he believed in
this position, and I sort of tried to get that
out of the way early.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
He believes in this position. He's not someone who is.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
Hired, who has hired out his persuasive abilities to an
issue that he doesn't feel strongly about.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
So go right ahead again, you can answer that question.
Speaker 4 (37:24):
Go ahead, Dan, Yeah, No, I am. You know, I
run a lobby and firm. I only have clients who's
causes I believe in and and and this bill is
one one bill that I believe very strongly. And I
think I think that there's there's there's no harm, and
there's a lot of good that can be done by
taking a look back after twenty five years of incarceration.
Speaker 5 (37:47):
I don't know if it's appropriate if I should ask
if you're getting a fee or not for this, But
if it's offensive.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
By a poo, you can ask whether Paul you can
it's appropriate to ask whether he wants to answer. This
is his question. He may be doing this pro bon
he maybe bring this pro bono. Dan, you want to
handle that.
Speaker 4 (38:03):
I mean this this is I mean the joy of
living in Massachusetts. It's it's you know, as lobbyists, everything
is public. So this this is, this is a client
that I work with for for a fee, and I'm
I'm I'm proud to do the work and I'm you know,
doing my best buy them. But I believe in the
I believe in the cause absolutely best for luck you, sir, Thank.
Speaker 3 (38:24):
You, Paul.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
Appreciate your calling very much. Folks, we have run out
of time, Dan, I appreciate your time tonight. You're a gentleman.
Couldn't couldn't disagree with you more with this, but I
thank you for having joined us. We're going to continue
the conversation with callers in the next hour. I think
you've got a hill to climb here, but we'll we'll
revisit this at some point, and i'd always I'm anxious
(38:47):
to have you back.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
This sounds sounds great. I appreciate the conversation, and you know,
in a longer run, maybe we'll have we'll come close
through a.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Green I think that I think that hill is going
to be pretty tough for one of us to climb
up inside or both of us take a lot of upside,
but we'll have We'll have you back, particularly if this
gets out of committee uh and gets close to you know,
to actually debate on the floor and potential passage. Thanks
so much for for your h Do you have any
any promises from leadership on this issue?
Speaker 3 (39:16):
If I could ask no?
Speaker 4 (39:19):
Right now? You know where we are in the in
the legislative calendar. We've we've had some preliminary conversations with
legislators and and sort of committee staff, But right now
it's honestly, it's all budget all the time, so I
don't think we're going to get much of an answer
until we get past the Senate budget in May in
terms of timing and hearing.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Okay, well, keep keep us posted, Dan. I appreciate the
conversation with you tonight. For those of you in the line,
please stay there. We will continue to have this conversation
in the next hour. Whether you agree or disagree with me,
feel free bringing on coming back on Night's side. Here
comes to ten o'clock News
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBSY Boston's new video.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, welcome back everyone. My name is Dan Ray,
and we are now entering the nine o'clock hour on Nightside,
and this is the hour when we get into some
of the issues and topics of the day. And yesterday
I noticed an article at the State House News Service
written by Sam Drysdale, and it's about an effort in
(00:29):
Massachusetts to eliminate life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I think most of you who know me.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Know that I am very critical of something like that.
But I said to my producer today, there's a fellow
named Dan Delaney of the Delaney Policy Group or Daniel Delaney,
I should say, who is lobbying for the bill? I said,
why don't we invite him on and we can talk
about it. Whatever his point of view is, he supports
this points of view always welcome here. So first of all,
(01:00):
let me welcome Daniel Delaney of the Delaney Policy Group
to Nightside. Daniel Delaney, you prefer Daniel or Dan?
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Dan is perfect? Okay, Well I'm in trouble when I
hear Daniel.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
So that's pretty much the way I grew up too,
by the way, so I can identify with what you're saying.
So your group is Delaney Policy Group, and you are
a lobbying group, so your lobbying for this bill. Have
you been up at the state House a long time?
It looks as if you've been there for a while.
Speaker 5 (01:32):
I have.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
I first got to the state House as a legislative
aid back in two thousand, worked in the state House
for a while, worked for some nonprofits, worked for five
years of the Department of Public Health as their legislative liaison,
and then back in twenty twelve, hung my own shingle
(01:53):
and started the Delanney Policy Group.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Okay, good for you.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
So just for garification, because they never want to make
an assumption here, we'll get into the substance of this
piece of legislation. But this is not you're not a
hired gun here. It looks to me from what I read,
is that you believe in this. You may you're you're
hired as a lobbyist, but it's not that you say, hey,
(02:18):
I don't care what side of the issue. It sounds
to me like you support this piece of legislation.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Absolutely absolutely support this legislation and happy to talk about it.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Sure, perfect, Okay, So so you know that I'm on
the other side of the issue, but I want to
give you every opportunity to explain it. What what is
the benefit of this legislation. I can understand the benefit
to people who find themselves facing a life without parole sentence,
(02:48):
feel free to talk about that. But what is the
benefit to the to the survivors? And often these are
murder cases in Massachusetts. As I'm sure you know, what
is the benefit to the surviving family members of the
victims and also to the con Wealth of Massachusetts. You know, again,
you don't have to give me a long presentation, but
(03:10):
I'm sure you can hit some of the high points,
just as the advocate of this tell us, tell us
why you supported well, I.
Speaker 4 (03:17):
Mean, I support it because I think that that it's
important for the common Wealth to make sure to on
a regular basis sort of revisit old assumptions and old
policy positions. You know, when I think about the reasons
people go to jail, they typically roll out, you know,
(03:37):
three different kinds of criteria. You know, one is the terrence,
one is for punishment, and one is to enhance public safety.
And so when I think of folks who've been in
jail for twenty five or more years. We know because
the data shows that at the public safety risk it's
(03:59):
greatly reduced. I think, and you may not agree, but
I think, you know, the the deterrent effect sort of
at the margins, I don't think is is that impactful.
But I think the you know, the benefit for for
the commonwealth is saving commonwealth funds and expenses that are that,
(04:27):
particularly when you have elderly or sick inmates, that can
be exorbitant. We have over seventeen or we have nearly
a thousand men and women serving life without parole, and
you know, it costs one hundred and twenty seven thousand
dollars a year per inmate just to house them, and
(04:47):
if they're if they're sick, that can easily triple.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
So there's a.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
Cost savings on that side. On the side of sort
of the survivors and the and the families, every every
family who has been struck by the tragedy of homicide
feels it differently and processes it differently. But but I
know from sort of the people that I've worked with,
(05:12):
there are a large number of folks who, after a
certain period of time feel that feel better having interacted
with with the person who had caused harm for their
family and being able to sort of process it and
put it and put it aside and move on with
their life. That's definitely not the case for everyone. And
(05:35):
that's but every every surviving family or every surviving you know, friend, acquaintance,
loved one has their own individuality in the way that
they interact with it. And what this bill does is
offer the opportunity for the parole board to assess after
(05:56):
twenty five years, what's in the best interest of the commonwealth.
Is it in the best interest for you know, this
person to remain incarcerated, or is it in the best
interests for the Kamwalt for this person to go out,
not be a burden on the commwalth at the expense
level that you would be being in concert incarcerated, and
try to re enter society in a productive way.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Okay, well, a couple of things real quickly, you use
what I would consider to be a bit of a euphemism, Dan,
and that as you refer to someone who caused harm
to their family. There's a lot of people who get harmed,
you know, by crime. You know, someone breaks into their home,
they they steal some money, or they're they're the victims
(06:41):
of a robbery or their car stolen. That's causing harm
to the family. But in order to get a life
sentence without parole in Massachusetts, you have to have done
a lot of harm and probably taken the life of
a loved one. So I think again, I view that
the phrase caused harm to the family. That strongly understates
(07:03):
what people receive life sentences without parole here in Massachusetts.
For what I want to do is I want to
take a quick break. I just wanted to mention that
to you because I understand you made a really nice
presentation deterrens punishment, public safety. I get all of that,
and I want to address the points you made, and
I want to give you an opportunity to respond. And
(07:25):
I got to take a quick break here. So let
me reintroduce you Daniel Delaney of the Leny Policy Group.
Dan Delaney is lobbying on behalf of a bill that
would eliminate the life sentences without the possibility of parole
here in Massachusetts. I disagree with him, and I want
to get this up on people's radars. If you want
(07:47):
to ask Dan a question or make a comment. I'm
going to open up phone lines six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty six one, seven, nine, three, one ten thirty.
I will again, you know, advise you as with any
guest on my program, they're the equivalent of a guest
in my home. And you can ask, however, tough questions
you want, make whatever statement you want, but I would
ask you again keep it, keep it professional, and be respectful.
(08:11):
That's the only rule we have here on Nightside. As
Dan and I will probably I hope be able to
do the same. So we'll be back with Dan Delaney
a question about whether or not Massachusetts should eliminate life
in prison sentences without the possibility of parole. My name
is Dan Ray. This is Nightside. Will be right back.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
You're on Nightside with Dan Ray ONBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
My guess is Dan Delaney. He is a lobbyist. He
runs a group called the Delaney Policy Group on Beacon
Hill and he is lobbying on behalf of a piece
of legislation that if an actor, would eliminate life without
parole in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Dan, just a quick.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Response for me to your very articulate presentation just before
the commercial break, and that is I disagree. I remember
when the death penalty was eliminated here in Massachusetts by
a single vote of the legislature back earlier this century,
and one of the arguments that is always used to
(09:14):
eliminate the death penalty. And by the way, I'm someone
who has had some experience in the criminal justice system
working on behalf and getting out people who have been
intentionally and wrongfully convicted for a murder that they never
were involved with in any way, shape or form. So
I understand that their mistakes are made sometimes. And on
(09:35):
the death penalty, my view is very specific that I
support it when it is applied to someone for whom
there is no scintilla of doubt about their guilt, and
I think about the Boston bombers as an example, and
when there are serious, aggravating circumstances. So I would apply
the death penalty a very limited fashion. But those who
(09:57):
oppose the death penalty always say, oh no, it's better
to put someone away for the rest of their life
without the possibility of parole. The death penalty is an
easy way out, So that argument was used in Massachusetts.
Put them away, block up the key that's the toughest
penalty we can give them. That's what they deserve to
eliminate the death penalty. Now, the same folks, and I'm
(10:20):
not saying you, but the same folks who are on
that side of the issue is saying, let's get rid
of life without parole. So my question is, what's next.
We get rid of any imprisonment, we just you know,
give them timeouts. I mean, these there's a lot of
people who do not belong to be amongst you know,
(10:40):
there are a lot of bad people in this world,
and I just don't understand the mindset that would say
on some you know, I can cite ten twenty fifty
one hundred horrible crimes than.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
You could as well.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
I want to put people away and lock them up
because they need they do what they need to understand that, yeah,
there's deterrence here. You're never going to kill anyone else.
The only other person you could kill would be a
prison guard. And you're going to be punished because the
act was so horrific, and that public safety will be
better with having these people away. And I don't really care,
(11:14):
you know that, you know what age they are, obviously
people who are seventy are less likely to engage in
violent crime from a testosterone point of view than people
in their twenties.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
I think I would agree with you on that.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So it just seems to me that the push from
the political left is always to be better and kinder
and gentler with criminals, even the worst criminals, with less
concern about victims. I'll give you a quick chance to
respond to that. Then I want to go to phone calls.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Sure, I'm sure, and I appreciate, I appreciate the question.
I appreciate the work that you've done on behalf of
folks who've been wrongfully convicted.
Speaker 6 (11:50):
But I'll cut.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Right to the point.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
I think that if you look at who's on the
proll board and who's going to be evaluing evaluating these cases.
If I have my way and this law, this bill
saales soon, and it's bading it to a law exactly
as it's written, you still have a group of well trained,
expert people who've spent decades working with prisoners on parole
(12:18):
or probation to evaluate whether or not he, you know
he or she, even though they've murdered someone, it should
be released on parole and all all that this Bill
is asking for, is that option for the evaluation. So
we're not saying twenty six years is too long, everyone
needs to get out of jail after twenty five years.
(12:38):
We're saying that at twenty five. At twenty five years,
it's worth seeing whether the person is changed, whether they're
the understanding of the crime has changed, and whether they
whether this evaluation can take place and be freed. I
(12:59):
don't I don't imagine that if there was a parole
review board that the marathoner bombers would get out because
you know, their crime wasn't horrible enough. So I think
I think that to me, that's a bit of a
red herring to say we're going to let everybody out now.
If what you want to say is, oh.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
I'm not saying and I understand, I'm not saying they're
going to let everybody out. I'm simply saying, there are
certain crimes that are so horrific that when a sentence
of life in prison without parole, it should it should remain.
The death penalty was removed in large part in this
Commonwealth because people said, make them serve their life in
(13:40):
prison without parole. That was the argument. Now the same
folks progressive people who fought against the death penalty give
them credit for their efforts. Are basically abandoning that argument
and saying, well, now, let's give them a chance. Let's
at least give them a chance after twenty five years.
And I think that that there are certain crime tis
(14:00):
that there are crimes for which they should be imprisonment
for life without PAROLEA Are you familiar with the Phillips case,
the doctor Phillips case in Connecticut?
Speaker 4 (14:13):
No?
Speaker 3 (14:13):
No, okay, well that's the case real quickly.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
It was a doctor and a wife and two children.
The family was a home invasion. These two career criminals
tied the husband up, kept him in the cellar so
he could not help his family, raped the wife, raped
the daughters, tied the daughters to their bed, took the
wife to the hospital to make a financial withdrawal from
(14:37):
a bank. One of them stayed at the house. One
accompanied her to the bank. Somehow, some way, she was
able to communicate with the teller that she needed help.
The tell her, you know, called police after she they
had left the bank. By time they got home and
were in the house, police arrived. And these two guys
knew that they were trapped inside the house. So their
(14:58):
response was the doubts the beds of the little girls
with gasoline, light them on fire, killing them and killing the.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Wife so there would be no witnesses.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
They apparently forgot about doctor Phillips in the basement, and
they fled from the house and were caught red handed.
I mean, I don't want some people who did something
like that even to have a scintilla of hope that
they could ever get out of prison. I would put
them in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives.
That wasn't an eighth Amendment, Dan, there are people in
(15:32):
our society who do not deserve that sort of consideration.
I know you're speaking with a kind and a good heart,
but I'm speaking on what I think is the reality
that there are some crimes. You know, you would disagree
with me that I would have put those guys in
the electric chair because of what they did, no scintilla
(15:52):
of doubt about the crime, right and certainly horrific aggravating circumstances.
They didn't have to kill those two little girls to death,
tied in their bed to start a house fire. So
let's get someone, Let's get some phone calls and see
what you and I are not going to agree.
Speaker 4 (16:09):
I'm not gonna commence, no.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
No, no no.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
I think we'd have to spend a long time for
and for me to move you or to But this
is a serious topic because it does talk about, you know,
the place in which we live. I got a minute
left if you want to respond to that, to to
those to the examples that I just mentioned, these phymes
with is no doubt, no doubt of of of the guilt,
(16:36):
not a scintilla of doubt of the guilt that's not
beyond a reasonable doubt, not a scintilla. And there are
aggravating circumstances. Then there are cases I can cite for
you here in Massachusetts, uh and around the country that
are like this, go ahead, Well.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
I would say, I would say too quick thing to
that one, I would I would say that the kind
the very the people that you are speaking of will
commit those kind of heinous crimes are unlikely to be
deterred by the fact that I'm going to get out
in twenty five years instead of staying in for forty years.
Like I think for that kind of person who has
(17:14):
no moral compass, I don't think the deterrent effect is
it's reasonable to expect someone who could do something so
heinous is going to be staying up to date on
what the current sentencing statutes are and the marginal gains
whether you get a parole review or not.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
And the other one that family going to a parole
review twenty five years from now under any circumstances.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
The victims.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
I'm speaking of the victims now, because you know that
after twenty five years, they're going to want that parole review,
even if they know they have no hope of getting parole.
Speaker 7 (17:46):
No, that's that.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
I mean the role of the victims of surviving family members.
I mean that absolutely has to be taken seriously. I've
I don't every family is unique.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
How they're you know, I feel like their pain is
beyond something I could imagine. And I don't see.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
The moving the needle.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
Much one way and the other. But but every family has.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
That family's going to have to go.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Now, if let us say in the family that I described,
let's say that there were some younger children who were
four or five who were staying, who are still survived,
who somehow survived.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Who were at home when this this horrific event occurred.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
These type of animals are going to want their parole
review because they're going to want to what's going to
give them a few days, are going to give them
a ride out of the prisons of the parole board
or whatever. Uh, And the family's going to want to
go there and have to confront them twenty five years later.
Let's do this, Dan, I gotta I think our positions
are pretty clear. I got phone calls. I want to
(18:57):
get to people. The only line that I have open.
We got a bunch of phone calls. Everyone's going to
be polite to you. Don't worry about it. You're you're you're.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Amongst friends here, even though we think you're crazy on this.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Okay, don't worry about it. It will take phone calls
sixty Again, I emphasized the people maintained the night the
night Side standard of civility six one, seven, nine. Those
are the only two lines available right now. We got Liz,
Jim and William and Baltimore coming up right after the break.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
It's Night Side with Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
All right, my guess is Dan Delaney. Dan is a lobbyist, uh,
and he is lobbying on behalf of a piece of
legislation which would eliminate UH in Massachusetts, the penalty of
life in prison without parole, which is by the way,
given primarily to people who have convicted who are being
(19:57):
have been convicted of murder in the first degree. It's
an obligate, gatory sentence that judges are required to hand down.
And Dan's kind enough to spend some time with us tonight,
so you can direct your questions to him. Your comments. Again,
we asked you be polite. Let's start it off with
gonna go first off to Liz in Walpole. Liz, you
are first tonight on Nightsig go right ahead, Rome with
(20:17):
Dan Delaney.
Speaker 8 (20:20):
Thank you, Dan, I appreciate you thanking my call. And
that's two comments for Dan de Lady. Number one, I
think in your presentation, by coming up with the justifications
for the consideration of pardon after twenty five years, with
the economic cost of keeping somebody incarcerated, it can be
(20:45):
twisted very quickly to a really.
Speaker 9 (20:47):
Telling argument in favor of the death penalty. So I
think that's not the reason to.
Speaker 8 (20:53):
Approach the finance as the supporting argument. The other thing
is a question of forgiveness and as Fan has pointed out,
having the family members surviving after a horrific murder twenty
five years previously is I would think cruel and unusual punishment.
Speaker 9 (21:15):
So therefore, perhaps.
Speaker 8 (21:18):
The solution is to keep the law the way it.
Speaker 9 (21:21):
Is, and that the individual perpetrator, having been converted converted
death predicted, first see if he can find a moral
solution through prayer to the deities of his choice.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
Daniel response, Well, I mean I think that.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Certainly FORGIVENESSES is an important component if any of these,
if any any of these reform measures are liable to occur,
And I do think that, I mean, I take heart
the importance of the convicted murderer needing to reflect and
(22:11):
whatever their spiritual tradition is on the harm that they've done.
I just don't find that that's incompatible with giving them
the option to have their sentence reviewed after twenty five years.
Speaker 9 (22:25):
All Right, Dan, I appreciate you responding similar option to
your victim.
Speaker 8 (22:31):
They de not their victim a twenty five year.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
What you're saying is that in the case of yeah,
what Liz is saying, it's yeah, Liz is saying in
a sense of murder, and most of the life in
prison without parole cases in Massachusetts are first degree murder cases.
They did not offer that opportunity for any sort of
judicial review or otherwise after a certain period of time.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Wells appreciate your call. I do, thank you very much, well.
Speaker 9 (23:04):
Said, thank you, breaking all. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
All right, thank you, have a great night. Let me
go to William in Baltimore, Maryland. William, you were next
on nice side.
Speaker 6 (23:13):
Dan.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
We've heard all over the country, by the way, so
don't be surprised with people call from different parts of
the country. William is a regular caller. William, welcome back.
How are you, sir?
Speaker 7 (23:23):
I'm playing?
Speaker 5 (23:23):
How you going? Dan? And uh?
Speaker 3 (23:25):
Do it great again? Ahead?
Speaker 7 (23:28):
Oh yeah, Dan, I mean yeah Dan, Dan and Dan? Yeah. Anyway,
look the way, William. The wave Massa Yeah. The wave
Massachusetts goes, so does Maryland.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Right.
Speaker 8 (23:38):
Uh.
Speaker 7 (23:38):
Here in Maryland does Bill sitting on the desk of
our governor called the second look at right. I don't
know if he's going to sign it yet, but they
talking about the same thing here in Maryland, where after
a person who does murder served twenty five years to
give them a second look, right, which is basically the
legislative time just ended here in April. But they were
(24:00):
arguing about it, back and forth about this building.
Speaker 5 (24:03):
And now the.
Speaker 7 (24:03):
Governor, he or Wes Moore, he wants to uh. I
think he got other aspirations. He hadn't signed it yet.
He's I guess he's wilding or whatever. Right, But I
feel like this. I always think about the victims and
these things. But I always say, because I watched a
lot of id and and Dan, that's family he was
talking about. I thought their name was Pettit, that'ster Pettit.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
But anyway, you're correct my mistake. Thanks William, you're one
of my best callers.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
It is the Pettance, not Phillips. Thank you very much.
I appreciate that that correction.
Speaker 7 (24:33):
Yeah, I remember that, Dan, and that was an awful story, right,
See people like that. I'm with you, Dank. Is this
a guy? And I don't care nothing about them being old,
sick or whatever. Right because the victims cannot get back up, Daniel,
I mean, dang, the victims can't get up. That's the
way I feel. I have a niece who's thirty years old.
(24:53):
She is a federal Parole and Probation officer. He in Maryland.
She's married with four children, her and her husband, and
she is thirty home visits. The other day she said,
do home visits? She said, every corole complains about She says,
she always complains about the conditions of the parole and
she wasn't the state corole and cobation officers. They're unarmed
in Maryland. But when she became a federal parole and
(25:16):
cobation officer, she's armed. But what it is is that
they don't even want them to call them parole and
probationers anymore. They have to call them clients. You know,
this woman has a master's degree, and you know, it's
just bibles in my mind, how they've turnted around to
treat these prisoners, you know, the treat the prisons, the
way they treat them, you know, And you say, it's
one hundred and seven thousand dollars same thing here in Maryland.
(25:39):
But I swear to Maryland. Sometimes I'm blind sometimes even
sit in here and listen to different things that's going
on in Massachusetts and what's going on here in Maryland,
and it parallels itself. So I think it's like following.
It's a trend in this country man, and I that
we just need to cheat these if these people are
painting as murderers like you said then in the Boston
strangler and the guy that killed the pet of family,
(26:01):
I have no mercy for these people. Man. They need
to be put to death, you know. And Dan, I
want to be respectful and I respect your opinion, but
I have a different opinion. Thank you, Darren. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
All right, Thanks, William, appreciate your calling. Let's keep let's
keep rolling here. Be well, my friend, be well. Let
me go next to Jim is in Revere, a little
closer to home. Jim and Revere your own Dan Delaney
of the Dan Delaney Policy.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Group, right ahead.
Speaker 10 (26:27):
Yeah, I'm with you Dan on on this?
Speaker 5 (26:32):
Which Which? Dan?
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Which?
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Dan?
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Jim?
Speaker 11 (26:34):
This?
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Jim.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
You've got Dan Delaney and Dan which one?
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Go ahead?
Speaker 10 (26:39):
I'm with you Dan, nice fact smoking down murders and stuff. Good.
They should bring back the death penalty. I mean, if
you don't want life with a p role, well, then
bring back to death. Because she talked about twenty five
years you remember why you can't It seems like it's
(26:59):
just I mean, that's Jim, Jim.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Jim do me a favor. I want you to talk
into your mouthpiece on your phone.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
It's I'm having a tough time hearing you, and I
want Dan to be able to hear you and potentially respond.
Just talk right into that mouthpiece, don't don't let it
drift away.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
Go ahead.
Speaker 10 (27:23):
Okay, sorry about.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
That, much better, much better?
Speaker 5 (27:26):
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (27:28):
So, anyways, like I said, twenty five years or nothing,
y two k seemed like it was yesterday. I mean,
life footow parole. I mean, I don't believe that either,
because if you did something that bad, we shouldn't be
giving you, you know, move over your head and meal
free meals for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
The argument was that you to get rid of the
death penal. The argument was, and I want Dan Delaney
to comment here because I don't want to want to
be fair, uh, was get rid of the death penalty.
And the argument was that all the people would take
the death penalty because that was the easy way out.
In point of fact, that was not true. The only
criminal that I know who had asked for the death
(28:08):
penalty once he was convicted was Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma
City bomber, and he instructed his lawyers to drop all appeals.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
Every other person who was.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
On death row fought at tooth and nail, whether they
survived or whether they were eventually executed. Dan, we've had
a couple of calls. Here is there you can comment
on what Jim has had to say, what William from
Baltimore has to say.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
I want to try to make this fair go ahead.
Speaker 4 (28:37):
Sure, I mean I think, you know, at the end
of the day, I think I think if you were
the person serving twenty five years, it's not a it's
not a short time. And I feel like all all
that what this bill is trying to do is like
(29:01):
like will said, this is a second look. Twenty five years.
Has anything changed in any of the circumstances that makes
the pro board, who is not led by a bunch
of you know, wild liberals, do they think that enough
has changed to make someone eligible to come back home
(29:23):
and re enter the community. And if they don't, think
if they think the crime is too heinous, or if
they think that, you know, the person has not has
not changed enough and they are still the same killers
they were twenty five years ago, then the person then
the person goes right back to incarceration. So I understand
the idea of wanting to say, hey, you know it,
(29:46):
it's a smoking gun, let's have the death penalty right away.
But we also know that even those absolutely certain cases,
people get wrong sometimes, or people get the context wrong.
Sometimes in Massachusetts, after you've been convicted, you can't talk
about mitigating circumstances. So there isn't a there isn't an
option to to tell a different story. And we feel
(30:10):
I feel personally and all the folks who are advocating for
this bill really are just pushing for you know, at
twenty five years, we think it's fair and appropriate to
look at the story again.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
My suspicion is that that if you're successful here Dan Delaney,
that twenty years from now, another talk show host, there'll
be there'll be successive groups to you who say, well,
let's make it twenty years of fifteen. Fifteen years is
a really long time I do. The thing is that
I keep coming.
Speaker 10 (30:40):
Fit sitt in families every time you even mentioned parole
or anything. We have to relive these things over and absolutely.
I just want to give you two quick examples. What
happened with nine to eleven. Right we went there, we
got so down we got them. It's over, the country's
at peace. Every time you match in the marathon thing,
(31:01):
we know he's still alive, and we relive it and
we suffer. This is what I'm saying. I mean, all right,
what happened nine to eleven, We think we got all
those people. Everybody's happy, everybody's at peace. But what happened
in Boston with the bombing, we relive it every year,
and those families will be at peace.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
No, never be a piece, Jim.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
I got to run here, okay because I'm past my break,
But thank you for your call. We'll be back. We
have a concluding segment coming up with Dan Delaney. He
would like to eliminate life without parole in Massachusetts. I disagree.
So far, my listeners have feel free to join the conversation.
We have pretty full lines. Only one line open. We'll
carry this conversation into the next hour. Six point seven
(31:43):
thirty is the one line that's opened. Back on Nightside
right after.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
This, It's Night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
My guest is Dan Delaney of the Delaney Policy Group.
He is lobbying in favor of a piece of legislation
which would eliminate life without parole here in Massachusetts. I'm
going to go real quickly to Jim in Hyde Park. Jim,
you were next on Niksacer right ahead, Hi Dad, I.
Speaker 12 (32:09):
Had to tune in on this conversation. And to mister Delaney,
bless his heart, I strongly disagree. I think life without
parole is substantial. It's a second chance. They should be
(32:33):
glad to get life without parul. I just think of it.
What if it was one to mother, father, sister, brother.
They can't come back, regardless of the second circumstances, whether
it's first degree or tenth degree murdered, those people can't
come back. And they are getting three hots and a
(32:57):
cot every day. Some can go out and enjoy the
sunshine and some may be locked up.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
But I think I think they all have to get Jim.
I think they all have to get you know, they
cannot be treated badly, meaning they you know, if they misbehave.
I think they can get some solitary but I believe
that they have to get some outdoor recreation activity.
Speaker 12 (33:22):
You a grieve with that, But to eliminate this order
is outrageous. In my opinion. I do believe in forgiveness
and that is forgiveness because they skip the electric chick.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Thank you, Dad, Thanks Jim. You said it very well.
I hope you could become more of a frequent call
of hero at nights.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
I enjoyed it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Let me go to defense lawyer Harvey Silverglade. Harvey, want
to get you in here. You're wrong with Dan Delaney.
I'm going to be really interested to see what you
think about this issue.
Speaker 6 (34:00):
I am opposed to life without parole for the same
reason that I'm opposed to capital punishment. Okay, I know
how imperfect the system is and how many mistakes are made. Now,
so somebody's going to say to me, yeah, but there
are some cases in which you're sure, you know you
(34:20):
have it on film. Blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 11 (34:23):
The problem is that when you make exceptions, it's the
exceptions is start to eat up the rule, and eventually
an innocent person is going to be executed, or an
innocent person is going to be sentenced to life without parole.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Tarvey, you know I respect and understand the argument. I
understand it more strongly for the for the death penalty argument.
If we carry your argument to a logical extreme, we
might say, under no circumstances should we sentence anyone to prison,
because theoretically we could be sentencing.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
Again.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
You might argue it's reductor, I'd absurd them. But you
sent to some eight ten years and they're innocent, You've
taken ten years of their life, as they has happened
in the Sovati case. And they were able because they
were alive to argue their case, and the compensation was
was significant, but it certainly did not replace the years
that they lost in prison.
Speaker 6 (35:20):
The problem is that you are going to sentence somebody
to life without parole who is innocent. It's inevitable, it's
some insurance. Happened and it will happen again.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
So what is the minimum and what's the minimum? What's
the minimum sentence?
Speaker 3 (35:37):
You would you would.
Speaker 6 (35:38):
Support well, lifeless paroles, okay, but at parole.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
The parole harvey, as you know, is not a matter
of fact. The person in order to be paroled, for
the most part, has to admit guilt. Parole does not
say to someone you're innocent. They could become a choir
boy in prison. I don't know that that qualifies them
to be released. Obviously, if we get rid of life
without parole. That's going to increase that possibility. This is
(36:13):
one we're going to disagree on, my friend, and I
always have to reconsider my thoughts when I disagree with
you on anything. So you've said it well, Dan Delaney,
You've got the best advocate you could possibly have.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Here, Harvey.
Speaker 4 (36:31):
Thank you, Harvey.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
Right, good night, Thanks Harvey, talk soon, good night. Let
me get very quickly here, going to get Paul in Boston.
In Paul, you were next all night, secho, right.
Speaker 5 (36:40):
Ahead, Yes, good evening, missus Laney. Are you representing any
group or any individual? Is your company been retained for
uh for a feed for the.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Yeah, Paul. By the way, we straightened that out early.
He's representing or organizations, and I believe also members of
the legislature, And I asked him whether or not they were,
whether he was, I asked him if he believed in
this position, and I sort of tried to get that
out of the way early.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
He believes in this position. He's not someone who is.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
Hired, who has hired out his persuasive abilities to an
issue that he doesn't feel strongly about.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
So go right ahead again, you can answer that question.
Speaker 4 (37:24):
Go ahead, Dan, Yeah, No, I am. You know, I
run a lobby and firm. I only have clients who's
causes I believe in and and and this bill is
one one bill that I believe very strongly. And I
think I think that there's there's there's no harm, and
there's a lot of good that can be done by
taking a look back after twenty five years of incarceration.
Speaker 5 (37:47):
I don't know if it's appropriate if I should ask
if you're getting a fee or not for this, But
if it's offensive.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
By a poo, you can ask whether Paul you can
it's appropriate to ask whether he wants to answer. This
is his question. He may be doing this pro bon
he maybe bring this pro bono. Dan, you want to
handle that.
Speaker 4 (38:03):
I mean this this is I mean the joy of
living in Massachusetts. It's it's you know, as lobbyists, everything
is public. So this this is, this is a client
that I work with for for a fee, and I'm
I'm I'm proud to do the work and I'm you know,
doing my best buy them. But I believe in the
I believe in the cause absolutely best for luck you, sir, Thank.
Speaker 3 (38:24):
You, Paul.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
Appreciate your calling very much. Folks, we have run out
of time, Dan, I appreciate your time tonight. You're a gentleman.
Couldn't couldn't disagree with you more with this, but I
thank you for having joined us. We're going to continue
the conversation with callers in the next hour. I think
you've got a hill to climb here, but we'll we'll
revisit this at some point, and i'd always I'm anxious
(38:47):
to have you back.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
This sounds sounds great. I appreciate the conversation, and you know,
in a longer run, maybe we'll have we'll come close
through a.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Green I think that I think that hill is going
to be pretty tough for one of us to climb
up inside or both of us take a lot of upside,
but we'll have We'll have you back, particularly if this
gets out of committee uh and gets close to you know,
to actually debate on the floor and potential passage. Thanks
so much for for your h Do you have any
any promises from leadership on this issue?
Speaker 3 (39:16):
If I could ask no?
Speaker 4 (39:19):
Right now? You know where we are in the in
the legislative calendar. We've we've had some preliminary conversations with
legislators and and sort of committee staff, But right now
it's honestly, it's all budget all the time, so I
don't think we're going to get much of an answer
until we get past the Senate budget in May in
terms of timing and hearing.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Okay, well, keep keep us posted, Dan. I appreciate the
conversation with you tonight. For those of you in the line,
please stay there. We will continue to have this conversation
in the next hour. Whether you agree or disagree with me,
feel free bringing on coming back on Night's side. Here
comes to ten o'clock News
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
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