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