Today was the deadline for ballot initiatives to be filed in Massachusetts for the 2012 election. There are some interesting initiatives that are aiming to get on the ballot:
- The Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance wants to legalize medical marijuana for people suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, or other serious illnesses. People would need permission from a doctor, and they could only get marijuana from treatment centers that would be regulated by the state Department of Public Health.
- The Fatherhood Coalition filed an initiative to abolish Chapter 209A, a law which allows people to get restraining orders without proof, of even an allegation, of wrongdoing. Designed to protect victims of domestic abuse, the law can also be used unjustly by people who are merely mad at their spouse or want to kick them out of the house.
- Massachusetts Citizens for Life is trying to abolish the state’s individual mandate, which requires all residents to have health insurance. I am glad to see this because, while the national individual mandate is the subject of a lot of controversy and criticism, the state one hasn’t been nearly as much.
- David Nunez, a Colorado casino developer, submitted a petition to allow three casinos in Massachusetts.
- Stand For Children wants teachers’ merit to be weighed above seniority in hiring, layoff, and transfer policies.
- Plus, there were 26 other petitions filed, for a total of 31.
To make it onto the ballot, each question must be certified by Attorney General Martha Coakley. Then, organizers must collect the signatures of 68,911 registered voters by November, as well as another 11,485 signatures by next July.
August 4 update: How did I miss this one? The Death With Dignity Act, which would allow people with terminal illnesses to obtain drugs to end their lives, is trying to get on the ballot as well. In my opinion, this would definitely be a step in the right direction.
In 2009, Massachusetts began charging people $25 to appeal traffic tickets to a clerk magistrate, and an additional $50 to appeal to a district court judge. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that these fees are constitutional, denying the appeals of Vincent Gillespie and Edward Hamel, who challenged their tickets in Northampton.
This got me thinking about whether fees to use the court system are, in general, a good idea. In all levels of the court system, people are regularly charged money to file civil suits or to appeal decisions. Supporters of such policies say that the fees raise needed funds and deter frivolous lawsuits, while preserving access to the courts because fee waivers are available for poor people.
While the court system undoubtedly is strapped for funds, and the last thing we need is more taxes, I don’t think that fees to appeal traffic tickets (or other rulings) are a fair method. Charging money to file an appeal punishes everyone, whether their appeal is frivolous or legitimate. And while indigent people might be able to get an exemption from the fee, this is not fair to everyone else who is deemed wealthy enough to pay. Even if the majority of traffic ticket appeals are without merit, the fees are an injustice to people who do have a good reason to appeal. It is wrong to force people who are unjustly ticketed to pay money in order to overturn a fine that should not have been imposed in the first place.
Being able to access the court system is a right, not something that people should have to pay for. Although the courts need money, this is not the best way to raise it.
Here’s an interesting appellate success story for a defendant. Luis Melendez-Diaz, 32 years old and from Jamaica Plain, was convicted of cocaine trafficking in 2004 in Boston’s very own Suffolk County Superior Court. He appealed on the grounds that Massachusetts law allowed proescutors to present forensic experts’ reports as evidence without allowing him to cross-examine the experts, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.” His case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2009, they overturned his conviction and sent his case back to be tried again. Today, in his retrial, he was acquitted.
The message? Appealing one’s conviction can work, although it isn’t statistically likely. Melendez-Diaz is still in prison for a drug trafficking conviction in another county, but it does seem like constitutionally, he had a point. Congratulations to him, I guess!
Source: Boston.com
Former police chief Edward Fleury was found not guilty in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with an Uzi machine gun. Fleury’s role in the death? He was the organizer of the gun show where the tragic accident took place.
Fleury was charged with involuntary manslaughter and three counts of furnishing a machine gun to a minor and was on trial the past few weeks in Hampden Superior Court in Springfield, Massachusetts. He was acquitted of everything.
I think this is the right verdict. Fleury owned the firearms training company that co-sponsored the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo. At the event, some children were allowed to fire machine guns under the supervision of a 15-year-old firing range officer who did not have a gun license. But Fleury did not personally give any guns to the boy, Christopher Bizilj. I’m not even sure if he personally decided that kids would be allowed to use Uzis at the show. Of course, it’s tragic that Christopher died, but it isn’t right to search for someone – anyone – to blame when it is truly not anyone’s fault. Firing a machine gun always has risks – as do basically all actions – and it is impossible to completely eliminate the possibility of deaths like Christopher’s. Nor, if we want a free society, should we try to.
The two people who brought machine guns to the show are also facing manslaughter charges, but there is a chance the charges will be dropped.
Remember Aiden Quinn, the MBTA subway driver who crashed a green line train while allegedly texting? He pled guilty today to a misdemeanor charge of “gross negligence by a person in control of a common conveyance,” according to the Suffolk County D.A.’s office. He was sentenced to 2 years of probation and 100 hours of community service, although prosecutors had argued for six months in prison.
D.A. Dan Conley criticized the judge’s decision, saying,
“What kind of message does this send to others? This defendant caused $10 million in damages, sent 64 people to the hospital, and shut down the Green Line on a busy spring evening. Why? Because he was trying to send a text message while pulling 80 tons of steel and glass and human lives. The riders on the train trusted him with their safety. This wasn’t an accident. It was the foreseeable consequence of his actions and he should have been punished accordingly.”
I think that probation is a reasonable punishment for Quinn…but shortly after the crash, the MBTA decided to punish all train operators by banning them from even carrying cell phones while on the job, a policy that I think is excessive.
More from the Globe, Herald, and NECN.
