CREEM - LOWER SENTENCES FOR DRUG OFFENDERS

BOSTON -- A MetroWest lawmaker, frustrated the state spends more money on
prisons than higher education, is urging her colleagues to pass legislation
that would relax the minimum mandatory sentences for convicted drug offenders.

State Sen. Cynthia Creem, D-Newton, sponsored a bill that would allow drug
offenders to qualify for parole once they serve two-thirds of a minimum
mandatory sentence.

Creem said paroling non-violent drug offenders could save taxpayers up to
$15 million annually and would help them make a more successful transition
back into society.

"Mandatory minimum sentences aren't working. There doesn't seem to be a
compelling reason to have them," she said. "These offenders are not a
threat to society. We shouldn't be paying so much money to incarcerate them."

Creem's bill is bottled up in the Criminal Justice Committee, despite
support from the committee's Senate chairman, Sen. Thomas McGee, D-Lynn.
The committee is a joint House and Senate panel.

Creem and McGee are scheduled to hold a press conference today at the State
House in an effort to rally support for the measure.

Many lawmakers, though, including McGee's counterpart on the committee,
remain skeptical.

"I'll need to be convinced," said state Rep. James Vallee, a Franklin
Democrat and the committee's House chairman. "Any time we're letting people
out of prison and reversing mandatory minimums, it's certainly something
that should be closely scrutinized from a public safety perspective."

The bill also has its share of supporters.

Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said
Creem's proposal, although a "small step" in terms of policy changes, could
generate significant savings.

In November, the foundation issued a report that shows the state spent $830
million on correctional services and $815 million on higher education in
the current fiscal year. That is the first time in decades that the budget
for prisons has surpassed higher education, the report stated.

"That represents a major change in priorities, even if it was happening
gradually," said Widmer, who is expected to endorse Creem's bill at the
press conference.

State Rep. David Linsky, a Natick Democrat who co-sponsored the measure,
said paroling drug offenders would cut down on recidivism rates because
they would be supervised upon their release from prison.

"Right now, offenders who complete mandatory minimum sentences are walking
out of prison with no probation, no supervision," said Linsky, a former
prosecutor. "Saving money is an ancillary benefit. This is really about
keeping future crimes from happening."

Approximately 2,000 of the 23,000 inmates in Massachusetts state and county
lockup are currently serving mandatory minimum drug sentences, according to
Leslie Walker, executive director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services.

"All this bill does is allow them to see the parole board. It doesn't open
the prison doors," Walker said.

Mandatory minimum sentences range from one to two years for cocaine
distribution and marijuana trafficking to 15 years for cocaine and heroin
trafficking.

"A lot of these people are the ones the Parole Board wants to see," Walker
said. "They're people who messed up and want to admit their guilt and be
good parolees."

Last year, Superior Court Justice Robert Mulligan, chairman of the
Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, sent Creem a letter in which he
expressed support for giving judges more discretion to impose sentences for
drug offenses.

Mulligan said some of Massachusetts' mandatory drug sentences are "very
long" in comparison to those in other states as well as in the federal courts.

Quoting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Mulligan said mandatory
minimums are "harsh and in many cases unjust."

"If this principle applies to future drug offenders who will be sentenced
under the guidelines, it should also apply to those currently serving
mandatory terms for drug offenses," Mulligan wrote. "Therefore, as a matter
of justice, it would be fair to provide some avenue of relief for those
presently serving mandatory terms."

But some lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, R-North
Reading, believe Creem's bill takes a piecemeal approach to sentencing reform.

"Quite frankly, I don't know why we would take a more comprehensive
approach to sentencing guidelines as opposed to picking out certain
crimes," Jones said.

Jones said he is not "reflexively opposed to having more discretion on
sentencing for certain crimes," but doesn't think Creem's bill is the
proper vehicle for reforming mandatory minimums.

"I don't think the bill is going to move (this year)," he said.