BID TO DECRIM HOOKERS AND FLASHERS A REAL CRIME

And now, from those wacky folks at the Supreme Judicial Court who brought
you homosexual marriage, here comes some of their appointees, pushing still
more groundbreaking legal theories.

How does decriminalizing indecent exposure sound? What about making
prostitution a civil, rather than a criminal, offense? Hookers, pimps and
flashers, come on down!

The SJC's fellow travelers at the Committee for Public Counsel Services
(CPCS) want to make sure all you deviants won't have to worry about having
a criminal record.

Their goal is to make indecent exposure like a parking ticket - that's this
month's "evolving paradigm" of justice from the Margaret Marshall crew. And
that's not all. If CPCS gets its way, judges can decide that shoplifting is
not a crime. Ditto, marijuana possession, public drinking and selling
alcohol to minors.

Soliciting for a house of ill fame? So what! All of the above might still
technically be misdemeanors, but a judge would have the option of reducing
them to civil infractions. This proposal to decriminalize flashing and
streetwalking was trotted out last week in front of the Legislature's Ways
and Means Committee by the CPCS, the agency that provides legal assistance
to the poor. The CPCS is run by a 16-member board, all of whom are
appointed by the SJC, which means Margaret Marshall. The rationale behind
this semi-decriminalization is it will save the state money - $2 million in
all. Thanks, but most people would prefer to know who the sex offenders are
in their neighborhoods.

A call was placed to William Leahy, the CPCS chief counsel, who testified
in favor of these proposals.

"If people have a problem with indecent exposure, we can take it out," he
said. "That's a minor item. We can address prostitution, too." Apparently,
since 1995 the district attorneys have had the option to make "oral motion"
to judges to decriminalize all these offenses. "But," said Leahy, "the DA's
have never used it."

Gee, why do you suppose that is? Perhaps elected officials understand their
constituents don't approve quite so heartily of this sort of behavior as
your average SJC justice.

Leahy says people convicted of these crimes never go to jail for them
anyway, so why not save a few bucks by letting judges decide whether they
should be prosecuted?

I'll tell you why - because too many judges around here are already going
overboard to pamper perverts.

"I told the committee," said Leahy, "if you want to add a provision giving
the DA's the right to reinstate criminal charges that the judge downgraded,
that's fine."

Isn't the judge supposed to be overseeing the prosecutors, rather than vice
versa? And think of the revenge the next Maria Lopez could extract on some
poor prosecutor trying to convict the next Ebony Horton.

But what can you expect from people appointed by Margaret Marshall? I wish
I had space to tell you about the records of some of the lawyers on the
CPCS panel. One screamed in court that her cop-killer client was framed.
Another sued a New York prison for not allowing vegan meals for his client,
a PETA member doing time for a protest that involved a threat of arson. The
CPCS board member said the ban on vegan meals violated the putative PETA
torch's "sincere beliefs in non-violence toward all sentient beings."

In a way, though, wouldn't you like to see indecent exposure decriminalized
in Massachusetts, if only to see John Kerry having to explain it out there
in flyover country?