Pubdate: Mon, 04 Apr 2005
Source: Sentinel And Enterprise, The (MA)
Copyright: 2005 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Mid-States Newspapers, Inc.
Contact:  http://sentinelandenterprise.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2498
Author: Jeff McMenemy, Sentinel & Enterprise

JUDGES MUST GET TOUGH ON CRIME

Everyone has a job to do if North Central Massachusetts, or anywhere
else, wants to win the war on drugs.

The politicians have to give the police chiefs the resources they need
to keep the city streets safe and to arrest the drug dealers and drug
users who choose to break the law.

The prosecutors then have to go into court and fight to try and
convict the people who are selling and using drugs in the region. And
before they go to trial, they should seek the highest bail possible
for the suspects who are charged with serious drug or drug-related
crimes. But it doesn't stop there.

Because police and prosecutors and everyone else along the way can do
their job, but if the judges, and particularly the district court
judges, don't treat drug offenses as the serious and
community-wrecking crimes they are, all the hard work goes down the
drain.

And frankly, that's been happening far too much in North Central
Massachusetts, and it's not just lately.

Before I became an editor, I covered courts and crime for close to 10
years for various newspapers up and down the Eastern shore. I covered
courts in the liberal enclave of Chapel Hill, N.C., and the North
Shore of Massachusetts -- places where you'd expect to see liberal
judges who are soft on crime.

I also worked as an editor at a small twice-weekly newspaper in
Smithfield, N.C., where you could be sure that if you did the crime,
you'd do the time. When I agreed to become editor of the Sentinel &
Enterprise more than two years ago, I expected to see judges here that
were tough on crime, particularly drug crime.

But for the most part, that hasn't been the case. Time and time again,
I've seen area judges hand out lenient sentences and set low bails in
serious cases.

The only thing that does is ensure the criminals will be back on the
street quicker, committing more crimes.

Talk privately to any cop in the region, and they will tell you the
same thing. It infuriates them that they bust their humps and risk
their lives bringing in a drug dealer or a gang-banger, and then a
judge sets a low bail and a few days later the same suspect is back on
the streets.

That happened just this past week. District Court Judge Edward
Reynolds set bail at $20,000 and $10,000 respectively for two brothers
and suspected drug dealers, who engaged in a lengthy standoff with
police in Fitchburg.

Thanks to Judge Reynolds, these men are now back on the streets.
Likewise, District Court Judge Elliott Zide set bail at just $2,500
for a Winchendon man who several witnesses say walked up to a
Fitchburg teenager and stabbed him in the chest.

I'm sure it won't be long until the stabbing suspect is back on the
street, thanks to Judge Zide.

Judges will tell you their hands are tied and they can only set bail
high enough to ensure a defendant will return to court.

But in reality, they have incredible discretion. Certainly all
suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but if several witnesses
say you stabbed someone in the chest, maybe your bail should be a
little higher than $2,500.

The truth is that many judges, and certainly most of the judges
operating here, often treat sentencing and setting bail like an
academic exercise. They don't see, or they pretend not to see, the
harm their decisions can have on a community.

If you turn dangerous criminals back out on the streets, bad things
can happen. It's time for everyone to do their jobs if we're going to
begin to attack this region's growing drug problem.

Everyone else seems to be committed to the fight. It's time for the
judges to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the
solution.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek