DRUGS, SEX WORTH DEBATE

Using a rider to the state budget to give judges discretion to turn minor
criminal matters into civil cases is such a terrible idea that you have to
wonder whether the Massachusetts legislators responsible were smoking
something funny.

This major revision of criminal procedure would let judges share a key
obligation of prosecutors, deciding what criminal charges to bring. It can
be related to the budget only by stretching the imagination and abusing the
legislative process.

Since 1995, district attorneys have had discretion (rarely used) to
prosecute things like possession of marijuana or indecent exposure as civil
offenses. Prosecutors are in the best position to decide whether the facts
of a case justify criminal proceedings, and it's reassuring that the
civil-case route is not common. Legislators like Rep. John Rogers
(D-Norwood), who as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee largely
decides what goes into the budget, disagrees.

Rogers estimated that the state could save $1 million a year since it
wouldn't have to provide lawyers for poor defendants in civil cases. He
acknowledged that some members view some of the offenses in question as
"not crimes at all."

Certainly some softheaded judges feel the same way. But it's up to the
Legislature as a whole to decide what an offense is, whether criminal,
civil or both. Members are free to try to persuade their colleagues that
something ought not to be an offense at all. Other members ought to be free
to argue against the idea, to project consequences, to appeal to experience
- - in short, to deliberate and decide like grownups.

Acting Gov. Jane Swift should veto this budget section without hesitation.
Her veto should stand.