Boston, MA – When Suffolk County’s district attorney-elect Rachel Rollins takes over the prosecutor’s office in January, criminals will no longer need to worry about being held accountable for many offenses – including resisting arrest.
“It’s a recipe for disaster,” veteran Boston defense attorney, Robert Griffin, told the Boston Globe.
“The problem is the message that you’re sending,” Griffin stressed. “You’re encouraging bad behavior. You’re telling people that we’re not going to do anything about this.”
Rollins, 47, has been widely hailed – and widely criticized – for her well-publicized “Charges to be Declined” list, which she has featured on her campaign webpage.
Newly-Elected DA Vows To Stop Prosecuting Resisting Arrest And 15 Other Crimes
The list of crimes that will no longer be prosecuted are:
-A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
-A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge
-Trespassing
-Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
-Larceny under $250
-Disorderly conduct
-Disturbing the peace
-Receiving stolen property
-Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
-Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
-Wanton or malicious destruction of property
-Threats – excluding domestic violence
-Minor in possession of alcohol
-Drug possession
-Drug possession with intent to distribute.
And this being Massachusetts, you know the citizens have by limited opportunities to defend themselves when the inevitable societal breakdown happens. As long as a criminal steals under certain amount of money, he is safe. Now imagine five friends walking into a liquor store and each of the pilfer booze in the amount of $200 each. Imagine that it is several groups of five, every day for a week. That would be one business that will shut down before Sunday. Mom & Pop grocery stores? Pack of smokes in Mass is almost $10 so an individual can come and steal 25 packs every instance and not be arrested? Beers?
Go to the mall and get yourself a nice pat of $185 Nike LeBrons and just walk out of the Foot Locker knowing you more than likely will not be arrested and if you are, you won’t be prosecuted. Walk around the counter of the Cinnabon in the food court, break open the register and steal only $250? Approved!
Your imagination can do the rest.
As long as they do not touch anything Federal, it is gonna be a full Christmas coming January 2019 for the Criminal Element in Suffolk County.
Hat Tip Joshua F.
All this is going to do is encourage lawlessness.
The refusal to prosecute “operating with a suspend or revoked license” effectively removes a big part of the penalty for drunk driving, and also guts any insurance requirements.
Unfortunately, like the bears in Yellowstone when “feeding the bears” was tolerated, the thugs can’t understand that the food box is empty, or that those $185 Nikes now have a $251 price tag. Rioting, fires, dead citizens to follow, not to mention retails sales will be non existent in some areas. Armed enclaves and local warlords will proliferate ala many Italian city-states during the Renaissance.
Want to drive businesses out of low income neighborhoods? This is how you do it.
Look for a spike in occupied-home invasions during cold weather. Followed by a spike in law-abiding people charged with homicide for defending themselves.
Oh, and in five years, look for a campaign to re-criminalize “possession with intent to distribute” because drug crime violence runs amok in inner cities.
I will dissent from other commentors in that I agree with not charging people with resistant arrest if there are no other charges.
The logic has been: How can someone resist arrest if you don’t have a legitimate reason to arrest them?
Of course, the answer is “resisting” has become a blank check to justify arrest someone who mouths off to a cop. This has been a libertarian thing for years that I’ve agreed with.
As for the rest of the charges, that is just going to invite theft, hooliganism, and low quality of life for store and small business owners. It will do nothing but drive business out of the city.
I don’t really object to that one. But the rest are about privileging habitual criminals over once-in-a-lifetime-offenders.
Waitaminute! You get to Elect the DA? And this was a campaign promise? What could possibly go wrong?
Where’s “possession of constitutionally protected weapons”?
The list started off pretty good with number 1, then went downhill fast.
Rent in Boston is expensive. Someone should just squat in the DA’s house. What’s she going to do, charge them with trespassing? I was going to say so long as they pick the lock every night instead of breaking the door, but apparently wanton destruction of property is also on the list thereby nullifying the “so long as no damage is done” exclusion of the B&E charge.
Oh no no no no no. That’s not allowed. Being a victim is for the hoi polloi, not the “beautiful people”…
Any guardhouse lawyers out there?
It sounds like her constituents can trespass on her property to protest, protest loudly at any time of the night, and even bring their battery powered impact wrench and borrow a single wheel from her personal vehicle?
At least for the two microseconds it takes for her to declare the protected Democrat exception to her own rules.
Expect to see the media trumpeting how the crime rate has fallen thanks to the new, progressive and woke policies.
They will, and she’ll use that “accomplishment” as a stepping stone to higher office while the enemedia refuse to point out the obvious.
[…] new Soft on Crime bill is going to be AWESOME for increasing the safety of the people of Suffolk County, […]