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