Do you really think. 3 Strikes your OUT, Ir really going to WORK. If we can't find counceling for them. How will they get BETTER. It will cost $$$$$. Good Luck folks.

Three strikes is too many. A lot of people are out of work, but we don't justify armed robbery because they were having trouble coping.

You can't administer justice from the legislature. Judges need to have the flexability to make the punishment fit the crime. Besides, we incarcerate too many people.

Alice, I don't think Sheff is justifying armed robbery, though it does sound that way. There are people with criminal tendencies out there -- I'd rather they get some help now, so they have more to lose by staying honest, than have them commit crimes, do harm, and take more resources being locked up.

Hi All,
I'm not justifying anything, just trying to stir up conversation.
I'm just trying to gage the voters position.

Domenic Cinelli??? are you serious? YOU JUST LOST MY VOTE! what a stupid statement to make ...... The guy was a MURDERER! This is a classic example of why we do not need a Govenors Council! imagine the Killers that would be out on the streets now!

I was out of work one time for 19 months, the sherrif was going to throw us out of our house! (luckily we made it through) Did I go Pistol whip and terrorize dept store employees? DId I murder a police officer? Come on Tom, THINK BEFORE YOU TALK! you just lost....

Earnhardt,
You maybe overreacting to my comment. My statement is simple. My exact words:"People believe if Cinelli found a job, that incident wouldn't have happened....". In my opinion, their thought process is Cinelli robbed Kohls because he didnt have money for Christmas gifts and if he had a job he would have had the money and wouldn't feel compelled to rob Kohls, therefore, the shootout never would have happened.
These are the thoughts of many intelligent people who are involved in the system...not mine. I dont know enough as an outsider to know if this is true or false. I would like to be involved in eventually helping out in reforming the parole system. You can't make changes from the sidelines.

Earnhardt,
One last correction. The Governor's Council is not the entity allowing people out on parole, the parole board is. If you want to blame everything the parole board does on the Governor's Council, thats fine by me.

Yeah, he was thinking: "let me terrorize and rob Kohl's for Christmas gifts" "Hmmmm all this expensive jewelry will make nice Christmas gifts, " How ridiculous! Flip burgers at McDonalds,, its honest work and its a paycheck! Sorry the no work argument is bull! Experts in behavior or not. Ill take pumping gas over Committing murder any day! There is no way to justify it and you know it. The governor's council approves the appointments do they not? They appointed the soft hearted fools that let the guy out. did they not?....

I'm done with this..... I see where you stand,,, good luck

Earnhardt said:"They appointed the soft hearted fools that let the guy out. did they not?...."
Yes they do.
Earnhardt said:"I see where you stand,,, good luck"
I don't know how you know where I stand, since I was using this platform to formulate a position and I don't have a definitive position, yet. Unless you can tell the future, you don't know my stand on this issue.

Quote" "I am inclined to be with this group." that's all that you needed to say. That IS your stand on this issue,,, as I said Good luck! Im only one vote.... why worry? with that stand your sure to win Woburn's vote (tongue in cheek)

Earnhardt, I am inclined to be with this group is the samething as saying I am leaning with this group (which is true). far from having a firm stand on an issue.
I want your vote, because I like you. I think you mean well and I respect your positions. (this doesn't mean I agree with you on all subjects, but I know you're positions are always well thought out).

I think "three strikes, you're out" is a bad idea. We have judges for a reason, and it wastes money to keep people in jail longer than necessary (and that money could be spent in other ways that saves lives, everything from monitoring the ceiling tiles in the Big Dig, to better pre-natal care, to renovating poorly designed road intersections).

Thanks David for your thoughts.
Let me clarify my position: I got into the Governor's Council race because of the Parole Board"s decsion to let Dominic Cinelli out. I absolutely 100% believe that he should never have been let out.
Where I tend to lean is when people say there aren't enough services for those who have been paroled. I believe that helping people that have been paroled and getting them a job may result in less reoffenders. Logically speaking, if there are less reoffenders, there are less people with 3 strikes. And yes, I did meet people who firmly believe that if Cinelli had a job that horrid situation never would have happened.

Forgive me, I got the date wrong.. that Last day of December, Not January.... anger got the best of me.

You guys argue it out.... goodnight

Earnhardt your argument (at the end) is the same argument people use about capitol punishment. They say, how would you feel if it were your parents who got killed wouldn't you want the killer to pay? The obvious answer is of course. But in that situation you are answering purely out of emotion. These decisions have to be reviewed objectively, not emotionally. It doesnt make a difference where I was on the December day. I feel horrible for the Maguires. They are part of the reason why I'm in this race.
Let's use your logic in another issue. I suspect you're not for gun control, I could be wrong I've never heard you comment on it, but I just get that feeling. This weekend when Holmes shot up the cinema, why wouldnt you be pushing for gun control or atleast getting rid of semi automatics? Same logic.

Gun control? I'm all for getting rid of semi automatics, absolutely, Now I admit I know nothing about guns. Nothing at all. But seems to me there isn't really any reason for anything more than sporting guns. If you feel horrible then 3 strikes and you are out should be one of your top priorities. Im not going to argue with you about this. You want to let people out that are career criminals. I don't think that's a person I want in office. As to gun control I've just stated my case . I Can't imagine a hunter needs a semi automatic anything.. I can't imagine a skeet shooter needs a semi automatic, But lets face it a single shot bolt action would kill someone just as easy. so what is the Answer? are you "inclined" to let things be? I haven't heard YOUR views on it come to think of it. Does the right to keep and bear arms mean anything goes? If it does, then explain to me WHY it does.Here's what my logic is saying: You want to give career criminals a chance yet again... Where do we draw the line here? where? lets see, after 10 years should we give Jerry Sandusky another chance? I mean with rehabilitation according to your way of thinking he could be a credit to society. How's that for emotion?

Earnhardt, whats the difference what my views are, I already lost you're vote. You want to vote for someone you agree on 100% of the time and the only one like that is you. You are mischaracterizing my positions, but thats you're perogative.
BUT, for other posters, my view is I am in favor of gun control, I think guns are like drugs in that I don't believe we can get rid of all of them, but it doesnt mean we shouldnt try. I also believe absolutely get rid of semiautomatics, they are just created to kill people.
On the record, I am not in favor of letting loose career criminals as Earnhardt suggests. I do think there maybe exceptions to the 3 strikes rule and if we dont allow for exceptions these people will suffer.

If it is implemented, will it be implemented in such a way that we use lessons learned from other states with three strikes laws (i.e. California) to make a more effective law? If so, how?

Hi Tammy,
Are you referring to Melissa's law?
If so, I would hope we learn from other states. I'd hate to repeat their mistakes.

Three strikes laws are nothing more than political posturing. It has nothing to do with crime, it just looks good on a campaign sticker.

You above beg for removal of the rights of all, including the innocent, due to the actions of one person. The rights of millions to counterbalance the errors which occurred in a particular case. By all means, let's commit a crime against humanity at large to make up for the errors in this case. We can obviously fix the errors of the past by making even larger errors now and in the future!

Now the Govenor is balking on signing Melissa's bill! What a touchy- feely everyone gets a trophy nit- wit! Hey Tom, what's your "inclination" on Melissa's Bill?

Maybe I don't know the law as well as I thouight. Above is David Chase's comments and he said that Cal version was amended, that there is a distinction made between violent offender and non-violent. That was a concern of mine. Maybe I should reserve judgement until I actually read the bill. I have a feeling that massachusetts watered it down enough for me to agree on, but again, I don't know.

I thought so, too:). I saw an opening and I took it:).
I didnt pose this question to give my opinion and get caught in a free for all. I posed this thread to learn my future (hopefully) constituents opinion. I want to engage people in discussion and make people think. I am not the typical politician where they come out and talk to you during election time then shut you down all the other times, I want you to constantly give me your opinion and have a voice. But since I will be out there, you all have to understand we aren't always going to see eye to eye all the time. I've never met two people who had the very same opinion on every subject, so if you're going to threaten me about losing your vote over one issue, keep it to yourself, you were never with me to begin with. That isnt to say I still don't want to hear what you have to say...just don't bother threatening me.

?????????

Earnhardt, I thought when you said, "thats a good way around the question, you were talking about my previous entry. If not, never mind.

Ok. So what I'm getting here is that Mr. Sheff is "inclined" to agree with a group who spoke on Cinelli. I think you chose the wrong scenario to make your argument and we all know the person hiding the alias Earnhardt (Did I spell "inclined" right?) disagrees with you on that too. I agree that 3 strikes should be implemented for career criminals with a violent history, Some people (Cinelli et. al) have proven that they cannot be rehabilitated and 3 strikes is definitely for these people, but a blanket policy that covers all crimes is seriously flawed. A person who shoplifts and is arrested 3 times should stay in prison? Explain to me the rationale behind that.

Thank you for prompting debate and inciting conversation. Like I stated before, I think your use of the Maguire shooting to make your argument is flawed and without the name calling as another poster has used think that those people who believe that and the people on the parole board that thought he was fit to go back into the population need to look long and hard at the Cinelli case before making a rather ridiculous statement. Mr. Cinelli may have been looking for a job for six months prior to the shooting and robbery, but he was also planning that robbery from the second he got out so pick another case to make your argument.

Jan, I'm not going back to quote myself, I don't have he time. What I believe I said and want to clarify is that I got into this race due to Cinelli. I never, ever would have let that man on the streets. He had 3 lifetime sentences hanging over his head and I want to make absolutely sure people understand that I am not Inclined to let that man out.
Where I start to waiver, as you suggested, is when a non-violent offender gets treated like a violent offender. I think someone on this blog, said that Melissa's law has been narrowed down to only include violent offenders. This I can support.

OOPs, I mean Jay, not Jan.

Hi Jay, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I think I understand what you're getting at. As I've campaigned and met people at events or on the street there is a group of people who seem to be part of the system (ie public defenders, etc.) who feel that when a person is paroled there isn't enough services for them to help them out. They've just left prison, if anyone does a search on these people they will see they were a convict, etc. and this niche of people believe with all of this against the convicts there isn't enough services supporting their attempt to make it in todays society.
I believe I did use Cinelli as an example. I bring up Cinelli wherever I go, because it was an eyeopener for me. Some of the people I have talked to believe with proper services Cinelli could have made the transition. I dont know what their logic is or what they know I dont, but there is a niche of people who believe this.
Jay, is that what you were referring to?

Let me add a short story. I host a local cable show called, "Veracity". a while ago I had on my show as a guest a neighbor of mine. She is currently in her eighties, petite and courageus. She is part of a program sponsored by Northeastern University who hire people to teach inmates. She teaches murderers, armed robbers and rapist (not all of them, but most) and she teaches them without a weapon by her side or a guard in the classroom. She came on my show regarding Cinelli (thats how I got educated on that situation) she obviously was opposed to his release, but always promoted more services for the parolees.
If anyone is interested, maybe I'll find away to view the show on the blog or on youtube.

Jill, that would be a terrific public/private partnership!!! When I ran for Mayor in Newton, I wanted to get non-violent offneders to come to the city's parks and fields and clean the trash. That didnt catch on.

Jill, you caught me:).

Jill I hope your never wrongfully convicted sitting in your ivory tower tweeting on your iphone

You REALLY think the "threat" of manual labor will keep criminals from committing crimes? As if spending time locked in a cell, in a prison, with people who are looking to physically or sexually assault you isn't so bad, but assembling an iPad or picking tomatoes would push you over the edge? That's some pretty bizarre reasoning.

For general information: I just received this email:
Friends,
617.725.4005 This is the telephone number for the Governor's office.
He is still sitting on Melissa's Law. It was over 12 years ago that Melissa Gosule was raped and murdered by a habitual criminal with 27 violent crime convictions. The state legislature has finally passed a law that would prohibit this kind of criminal from walking the streets. The Governor appears to plan to let this die on his desk.
Call him today. The deadline for signing this into law is Sunday.
A few seconds of your time. A polite "Please, Governor, sign this bill."

Tarek Mehanna did not need three strikes. How is one of Sudbury's most famous former residents doing in his new digs?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

For those who don't know who Tarek Mehanna is:
Tarek Mehanna is an American pharmacist serving a 17-and-a-half year prison sentence after having been convicted of conspiring to help Al Qaeda.
Mehanna's parents emigrated to the United States from Egypt in 1980. He was born in Pennsylvania and grew up in Sudbury, Massachusetts, a small town near Boston.
In 2004, Mehanna spent two weeks in Yemen, where prosecutors said he tried and failed to seek out training in a terrorist camp, with the aim of afterwards going to Iraq to fight with Iraqis against the US-led invasion and occupation. When he returned home, he began to translate and post online materials described by prosecutors as Al Qaeda propaganda. Mehanna's lawyers argued that Mehanna never tried to join an armed group and never tried to hurt anyone, and that his internet activities are protected under the U.S. First Amendment.
Mehanna has said that he does not support Al Qaeda, but does support the rights of Muslims to defend themselves against oppressors.
In April, Mehanna was sentenced in a Boston court on four terrorism-related charges and three others related to lying to FBI and other U.S. federal officials.

Katy G, Eanrhardt and others-Maybe it's my fault for not being clear. I do not have a clear opinion on 3 strikes you're out, I started this thread to hear you're voices. That being said, I do have some issues with it that seem to have been rectified. I never said that I would let violent offenders go, so lets get that off the table. If someone commits rape, assaults or kills someone I have no problem with 3 strikes. My issue with it was having a blanket policy where we treat violent offenders and non-violent offenders as the same. David Chase (above) says he thinks they narrowed down Melissas law, if they differentiate between violent/non-violeent offenders I'd be happy with that.
Also, my bringing up Cinelli had nothing to do with me thinking Cinelli could have or couldn't have been saved through more services. I brought him up for two reasons: 1. He's the reason why I'm in this race and 2. The people within the system used him as an example. Like I said, I repeated their opinion, not mine. I am not qualified to make an assumption as to whether or not he could have been saved, smarter people than me are dealing with that one.

The chief justice of the MA Supreme Court has just written to Gov. Patrick that the law does not provide enough discretion to judges, and that the automatic appeals provision will clog up the court system: http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/19128318/2012/07/27/mass-chief-justice-has-concerns-about-crime-bill

Hey Tom. I hope you understand that any mention of this in Woburn is a volatile topic, Couple that with anything saying people think he could have been rehabilitated in any way, was bound to draw fire and anger. Also, to be in politics, I hope you know you are going to have to develop a very thick skin, I do not believe in rehabilitation when it comes to violent criminals, I also don't b believe that repeat criminals, petty or not can be rehabilitated. Someone who steals cars over and over and over probably is beyond help. (in my view) So 3 strikes and your out to me seems fair and just, Also as I stated to someone who suggested I am hiding behind my screen name. I explained my reason, and I also explained I am hiding in plain sight and would be glad to share it if you anyone gives me their e mail, that way If my wife starts getting badgered again, I will know who leaked it out, As for Melissa's law, I am tired of the Governor trying to protect people that should not be protected, Again. in my view that is what he has been doing since day one. It can be said for his views on criminals, his view in the EBT card mess, And his stalling on Melissa's Bill. No hard feelings, it is after all a public forum you posted on, so hopefully you understand people have strong opinions, As for my vote, yes you lost it, And to be honest, I think I will skip over the candidates for Governor's council altogether

Tom you lost my vote with your support of gun control!

Hi Tim and Earnhardt, you're absolutely entitled to your opinions and I respect that. You have to understand that people like you are the reason why politicians do not parrticipate on blogs or say anything meaningful during election time. You can hear a 20 minute speech and most politicians will not take a stand on anything. Then everyone complains we didnt know his/her position on the issues.
I am being as transparent as I can on a hot topic and I dont score points with you (probably with no one)? It's not worth it to politicians...or me. Luckily, I'm not a politician and will keep speaking my mind and am sorry if we diagree on issues. I don't see any of my competitors voicing their concerns. Do you know how they stand on any of the issues?
So, keep voting the way you do, you'll get closed up politicians who you disagree with, but you'll never hear from them and they wont respond to you via email, either. Then keep complaining, it does a lot of good.
We aren't going to agree on 100% of the issues. I am curious who you do agree with 100% of the time.

Also, even though I lost your vote(s), I hope you continue to participate on the blogs. If I win, I'll still represent you and I want to hear your concerns.

I am sure some of you are sick of me by now, so in my defense I want to say one last thing. I grew up in a household of lawyers. I've seen the good and the bad of the legal system. Like most systems, there are probems with our judicial system. One of the problems is that occasionally the system convicts innocent people. No system is perfect, but my intent is to try to prevent that from happening as best as possible through getting the best possible candidates residing on the bench. If that offends people, I'm sorry:).
On a side note, I saw Dileo yesterday read off the crimes that Melissas bill will cover and they are all no-brainers and I would have had no problem signing that bill. Crimes like child rape and worse were on the bill and I would have no problem signing it. I would still be wary about prosecuting innocent people, but I would be in line with the actual content.

Erich Wraible (and anyone who agrees with his comment that gun control only stops legal owners from having guns, not criminals): that's true! But I'm betting there are far fewer criminals than the rest of us, and I'd prefer it if law enforcement could focus ALL their attention and resources on them, without wasting time on those less likely to "go postal." since one can't arrest someone for something they look like they're planning to do but haven't yet. Holmes in Colorado get his guns legally. How safe did that make his fellow citizens? Eric, would you want him living next door to you and your family? We can at least make assault rifles impossible for Joe Average Psycho to easily amass.
I have to wonder how the Founding Fathers would have decided to word the 2nd amendment back then if assault weapons were available, instead of the one-shot-then-stop-to-reload musket. (If Holmes had those, he would have easily been taken down by brave young men while he stopped to reload. ) It was crafted at a very different time for very different societal realities. In my opinion, it can't be blanket applied to current situations.

thank you.

I often find myself voting FOR someone if only because I can't stand the opinions and behavior of those that are against them.

@Earnhardt: yep, you're the one that convinced me the most. Thank you for your persuasive arguments in his favor. :-)

Earnhardt said:"People like us? you mean people who feel strongly about things that are right and wrong? Politicians do not post blogs etc because quiet frankly most do not care what we think so why post anything, the rest simply are too busy pandering to groups that will benefit them with their votes."
When I say people like you, I am referring to single issue voters..don't read any more into it than that. I think you're 100% right as to why politicians wont post on blogs. The more they speak and voice their opinion, the more likely you'll find issues not to support them. Also, you're right, they dont really care about you're opinion, they only care about your vote, so some may fain as if they care. They only care about apeasing their base.

That being said Earnhardt, can you tell me, without googling it, who you're Governor's Council rep is? I can honestly tell you by talking to the average person on the street that somewhere close to 80-90% of the general public doesnt even know what the job is, never mind their rep. Is that what you want? Someone who isnt out there and communicate with the public? I am sure you dont even know my competitors view on 3 strikes or any if the other relevant issues in this race, yet you've already excluded me for your vote. Even if you don't vote for me, I do hope you vote. I have gone through and been involved in too many elections where one side tries to suppress voter turnout. I feel the more that vote, the better chance the electorate has in getting the best candidate in office.

One last thing before I go out. I would love to meet anyone who wants to meet with me. It's impossible for me to get to 800,000 and I apologize to anyone I haven't gotten to ot wont get to by November. Iam trying. That being said, if you want to be proactive and sitdown with me for coffee, I would love it!!!!
Tom Sheff
ahhinc@hotmail.com
www.tomsheff.com
I hope you all have a great weekend.

This almost has as many comments as the King Gas thread!!! LOL, howdy Earnhardt!

This 3 strikes your out law is just too harsh, people should be allowed to break the law at least 5 times before going to jail. Also, the more criminals that are in jail, the less votes for Democrats in November because these criminals will not be able to vote. Listen, these guys can be rehabbed, and yes, if that guy would have been offered a job then he probably would not have done that. If Bush did not give tax cuts to the rich, then maybe this guy could have had a job. After Bush steered Hurricane Katrina into New Orleans I became aware of his evil powers and I think Bush is against criminals.

I grew up working in a family law office (ages 16-30). One of our clients was a man from the North End who spent 14 years in jail on a crime he didnt commit. (My father was his civil attorney, not criminal). If that happened to him and he had 2 strikes he'd go away regardless. All I want is a process whereby he doesnt go away forever on something he didnt do.

Either way it's going to cost us $$$. Counciling sounds good but I don't believe it's the answer. Some of theses "cons" could councel the devil as we have scene. We need some type of deterrent. Let's see if it works.

Rep Jim Dwyer of Woburn's take on Melissa's Bill (3 parts):
I wanted to take this opportunity to address the recent passage of the habitual offender law, commonly known as “Melissa’s Bill,” by both houses of the Legislature. However, before I discuss the specifics of the legislation or what is next in the process, I wanted to bring into focus two major occurrences that brought us to where we are today.

Two years ago, Woburn lost a police officer, and the Maguire family lost a father, brother, and husband, at the hand of an alleged violent habitual offender. Having known Officer Jack Maguire, and having worked with his brother Chuck in the Trial Court, Officer Jack Maguire’s murder was devastating to not only me, but the entire Woburn community. What was more devastating were the revelations following Jack’s murder about the long criminal record of his alleged murderer, and the apparent failures of our parole board at the time when it came to releasing a habitual, violent offender back into society.

In 1999, a young school teacher, Melissa Gosule, was assaulted, raped and murdered after her car broke down and she accepted the “assistance” of someone she thought to be a Good Samaritan.
(continued)

Her murderer had 27 prior felony convictions. Since that time, her father Les has advocated, along with Rep. Brad Hill of Ipswich, for what has commonly become known as “Melissa’s Bill” which would make sure that violent habitual offenders would remain behind bars for the maximum sentence of their third crime. Mr. Gosule and Rep. Hill have been advocating for more than 11 years, and I joined them four years ago while serving on the Judiciary Committee, with the hope that this bill would pass to help prevent any other innocent men, women, children and parents from having to go through what Maguire's family has endured. Both gentlemen deserve a great amount of credit for their efforts over this long period of time.

It was these two murders, and the many other instances of violent habitual offenders that were researched over the course of more than a decade during this debate that brought us to where we are today. The House and the Senate came together and developed a common sense bill that puts the safety of the public at the forefront in the way we want to reform our criminal justice system. Our bill makes sure that if a violent habitual offender, sentenced to three years for two previous violent felonies, must serve the maximum sentence rendered on a third violent felony conviction.

(continued)
This is simply put; the bill is common sense, truth-in-sentencing for violent, habitual offenders. These offenders are the worst of the worst and prey on the general public.

Many opponents of the legislation have gone out of their way to compare this bill to the California “three-strikes” policy of the 1990s. This assertion could not be further from the truth. In California’s law, any three felony convictions, including non-violent and drug related offenses, would trigger no parole, which is absolutely the opposite of what this legislation does. Our bill only pertains to violent, habitual offenders who commit murder, rape, aggravated assault, among a list of other violent, heinous crimes. The bill also reforms the way the Parole Board operates by mandating that District Attorneys are informed of all parole hearings regarding their jurisdiction, requiring a 2/3 vote for release rather than a simple majority with the vote now being public record, and requiring that each Parole Board member certify that they have read the inmate's criminal record before considering parole.
(continued)

Having passed the Legislature with 85 percent support, a veto proof majority in both the House and the Senate, I strongly urge Governor Patrick to sign the legislation into law before the end of the legislative session on July 31. In joining with my colleagues to develop this legislation, common sense principles not only make Massachusetts tough on crime, but also smart on crime. We cannot afford to let violent habitual offenders go unpunished by starting this debate all over. The first priority of any elected official should be the safety of our citizens. The time for action is now.

Melissa's Law email update:

Dear friend of public safety,

As you may have heard, Gov. Patrick is proposing to amend our habitual offender bill. His amendment would allow judges to grant parole eligibility to repeat violent offenders after serving just two-thirds of their sentence. (Our bill requires 3+ time violent offenders to serve their full sentence with no parole).

We expect the legislature to take up the Governor's amendment on Monday. Given opposition to the amendment by Speaker Robert DeLeo and the bill's main sponsors (Sen. Bruce Tarr, Rep. Brad Hill, and Rep. Jim Dwyer), we think it unlikely the legislature will adopt the Governor's amendment.

Assuming the legislature sends the bill back to the Governor unchanged on Monday, the Governor can then either sign or veto the bill. And he can do so either before the legislature adjourns at midnight Tuesday, or after.

If the Gov vetoes the bill by Tuesday, we'll ask you to call legislators one more time, urging them to vote to override the veto. Stay tuned.

In two days, Melissa's Bill will either be law, or it will be dead for the year.

They should have 1 strike you're out against dog fouling in public. It's a serious health crime...don't take that lightly!

"Dog Fouling in public"... what does that mean?

Either he means a dog that poops in public OR a really talented dog that knows how to play basketball:).

I want to thank everyone who commented on this thread. I have formed a position on Melissa's law, based on the information that I learned over the past few days from the news and this thread.
Going into this issue I had 2 main concerns. The first concern was whether non-violent offenders would be treated like violent offenders and whether there was a way to make sure that innocent people dont get erroneously charged.
Concern 1: I am convinced that Melissas Law adequately addresses making the distinction between non-violent and violent offenders.
Concern 2: I was concerned that a person can't be wrongly convicted. This is purely a problem of due process. This seems to me a problem that I was making up in my head due to my experiences at the family law firm. As far as I can tell, Melissa's law doesn't affect due process.
Governor Patrick's Appeal: while I agree with Governor Patrick when he says we can't foresee everything that will occur due to Melissa's law, I disagree in the need to give probation to third time violent offenders.
Overall, I am in support of Melissas law. I think everyone has been way too emotional on this issue and should take a step back, work together and get something on the books we can all work with. If it's not perfect, wait until the next Governor who maybe easier to work with and make whatever changes are necessary to make evryone proud of the law.
Just my 2 cents.

Dear Mr Sheff,
There is no way you can possibly ask to leave emotion out of it, not here in Woburn. This is a raw, open wound and State Rep. Jim Dwyer, a personal friend of Jack Maguire has worked tirelessly for this bill. He has poured his heart and soul into it for months along with Rep. Hill and Sen. Tarr. While we have endured this tragedy for a little over a year, Les Gosule has fought admirably for 12 years. I am not sure if you have children but no one ever gets over losing a child, especially one that was murdered by a convicted felon. I am glad to see after all the debate on here you have seen the light on Melissa's bill. You can read daily about repeat offenders though rarely do we hear a "do good" story about how one has turned their life around. I am sure they exist but this certainly wasn't the case with Domenic Cinelli or Michael Gentile. Please stop referring to this bill as "three strikes". We all know that was an epic fail in California and has a completely different connotation. Honor Ms. Gosule's life by referring to it as the name it was given....Melissa's bill.

And lastly, we all know that Domenic Cinelli was most certainly not robbing Kohl's to acquire Christmas gifts for family members...sorry that comment has kept me awake nights. I suppose in November he robbed Stop & Shop in Stoneham to put a turkey dinner on the table for Thanksgiving? Let's all hope and pray that we never have to suffer a travesty of this magnitude in our community again. one that was certainly preventable had the Parole Board done it's job properly. We must also implore Governor Patrick to do the right thing by signing this bill in it's original form! God Bless all who have worked tirelessly to bring this to fruition. Phone calls are being counted and there is still time to get them in (617) 725 4005.

NC,
Please call me Tom and I'll call the law, Melissas Bill. I am sorry I made a comment that upset you, that wasn't my intent. I wanted to be transparent on an issue that concerned me and is heated. Maybe it was my fault for having an opinion on a bill without reading it, I don't know...but my intent was to be open with people. I think the discussion on this board, for the most part, was open transparent and informative. I hope it helped others as much as it helped me.

Les Gosule summed it up Tuesday,
"To violent criminals and their apologists who complain that Melissa's Law is too harsh, I say: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". If you don't want to go to prison under this law, take responsibility for your actions and refrain from committing multiple acts of violence. It's that simple."
http://3strikeslaw.blogspot.com/

Remember, this new law doesn't just target 3-time violent offenders, but especially the 5, 10, 20, 50-time violent criminals, those beyond 'rehabilitation'.

Tom,
I accept your apology. Earrnhardt, I am a big fan! Western Civ...I mirror those words exactly. And to all...we may now call it Melissa's Law. FInally! Amen.

In my opinion, saying Cinelli wouldn't have robbed if he had a job is like saying a rapist wouldn't have raped if he had a girlfriend - utterly despicable and offensive to the victims.

Earnhardt said:" I wondr Tom. how many times over the years have you voted for someone because of the stance on a single issue? "
As far as I know, I have never voted based upon a single issue. I look at the totality of the situation when I vote and I don't vore based upon just politics (maybe thats why I'm an indepedent), I consider people's personality and intelligence and not always based upon their politics.
You also said:"Also here's a little hint: If you are trying to win votes, little backdoor insults wont work,,,"
Where was my backdoor insult? Maybe I insulted but irt wasn't intentional. I amy have beem joking around or you may have been too sensitive, but believe me I wouldn't backdoor insult you on purpose. If I did insult you I apologize. I'd like to know what you're referring to.
Lastly, of course I am on here looking for support. I would think that me just having a dialog with you would score points. What politician do you blog with quips and all?
Sam Adams, you were the 100th post, congratulations! You win a cubie doll!!!!
...

Hi Earnhardt,
I never said I vote blindly or by name recognition and I do vote based upon multiple issues...not single issues. Multipe issues is not the highest priority for me in determining who I vote for. Some of the key elements I look for in a candidate is character, personality, experience, guts and humility.
I understand no one is going to be exactly 100% like me, so being a single issue voter, I could mistakenly overlook a great candidate.
As far as Cinelli is concerned, you're probably right in that Cinelli couldn't be helped. But, maybe the extra services could help someone else. I don't understand all the hostility towards the idea. If extra services help just 1 in 4 people isn't that helping 25% of the people that otherwise would have presumably gone back to their wicked ways? Isn't that worth it? Thats 25% less people ack in prison or do we give up altogether?

Look Tom, as Ive said many times, your probably a great guy who wants to get involved,and I look forward to exchanges with you in the future, But since the start if this thread (which seems like ages ago) you have already flipped your opinion. You started out "inclined" to believe if Mr. Cinelli only had a job and money her never would have done the horrendous things he did. Now your saying he probably couldn't be helped? The fact is: he fooled the parole board, he got out and did his deeds, how many 3 timers do you want with the same smooth talking tell em what they want to hear skills getting out to go on rampages?

Earnhardt,
This will be my last post unless something substantial gets posted.
I think you misunderstood this exercise for me. I didnt flip my position at all, I used the forum to formulate my own position. We can argue over semantics all you want, but thats what this blog has meant to me.
I was never opposed to having Melissas law for violent offenders, I was repeating what professionals in the field were saying and I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.
In the future, I want to bring up other issues I am struggling with and want to hear what bloggers have to say and based upon hearing both sides, at the end of the discussion I will come up with a position.
I know for some people this is an emotional discussion and I appreciate their input...for me it was a matter of me wanting to be an elected official and I wanted to hear what the people think, so I can form a position.