Suffolk DA Dan Conley resigns

The Dorchester Reporter reports he's not waiting until after the election; will step down in two weeks to become special counsel to a lobbying company.

Conley had announced earlier this year he would not run for re-election. Democrat Rachel Rollins and independent Michael Maloney are running in November.



Free tagging: 



As I said....

I guess someone else is for sale as well.
Who could believe someone would just do something for the money ???




Not Quite


Did you see Rollins on Tucker Carlson addressing some of your concerns? I think if you listen you will see that it's really a bad idea to prosecute and house people in prisons for certain crimes. It's wasteful, it doesn't rehabilitate the offender, and it actually makes it more likely that the offender will commit another crime in the future. When you really think about it, we've been doing it the easy way for a while, but it turns out it's expensive and ineffective, which begs the question - why are we doing it this way?

If we can spend less money, protect victims, and reduce crime why would we do it any other way?


That makes no sense. There

By on

That makes no sense. There are plenty of crimes for which we don't jail people and choose other means of justice.


I know, right

If someone assaults someone walking down the street, I would hope that person would be arrested right?


Not fair

By on

That was Junior, not Senior. I'm not saying I agree with Senior - at all - but I know I wouldn't want people to judge me for my adult children's actions.

you will see that it's really

By on

you will see that it's really a bad idea to prosecute and house people in prisons for certain crimes.

If people break the law, they should be prosecuted. Reform sentencing if you truly believe the nonsense that "experts" are touting about how punishing people convicted of BREAKING THE LAW by putting them in prison is so bad.

But a DA who advocates for NOT prosecuting people who are committing crimes - and last I checked everything on the "will not prosecute" list is STILL legally a crime - does not deserve to hold the job and shouldn't even be allowed to run for the office.


So you like paying for jail slaves

Like Bristol County "gonna build the wall with short timers"?

Not all crimes carry a jail sentence, and prosecution is not always the best thing for society. That doesn't mean that nothing is done, it just means that we don't overburden the justice system to the point where people who should not be released are released (because law-n-orduh types also tend to be Tax Resistor types, too)

If a person commits a crime

By on

and is not even prosecuted (as this proposal calls for), let alone not sentenced, I'd call that doing nothing.

This proposal is a BAD social policy disguised as "more efficient" government.


There are more than just 2 options

By on

It’s not like the only options prosecutors have are lengthy sentences or not filing charges. She could put an emphasis on diversionary programs, so that people won’t be punished for life (via CORI) while the victims can see some kind of justice being done.

Restorative justice is more than just punishment. It’s an attempt to make everyone better. Deciding cart blanch not to prosecute certain crimes is as bad as deciding to prosecute every crime regardless of circumstance.

Which is exactly what she's said she will do

By on

People just fly of the handle and assume she's going to walk into every BPD district office unlocking handcuffs and handing out cash.

Diversion is not only cheaper, but has a better track record than incarceration.

Diversion can work.

I'm all for trying it, but pick your targets. 'Jhonny, 32' shouldn't be on the damn list.

I'll go so far as to say 'possession with intent to distribute' shouldn't be on the list.

The difference here is that, under this proposal,

By on

the prosecutor's discretion will be severely limited. Sad commentary on our times that a candidate for DA can actually run on a platform of NOT prosecuting people who commit crimes Don't want to fact the consequences of crimes, then DON"T COMMIT the crime in the first place.



By on

The decision not to criminally prosecute certain charges will be the default, but not a one-size-fits-all answer. An ADA will still be able to seek Rollins' approval to charge these misdemeanors based on the circumstances.


Massachusetts Criminal Injustice System

By on

Imagine instead of helping suburban heroin addicts, we made it almost impossible for them to get clean? Imagine we stamped them for the rest of their lives as heroin addicts, rather than getting them treatment for their "disease?" Take away their ability to get a job or secure stable housing? Does that sound like the treatment everyone is lobbying for?

This is what the Massachusetts Criminal Injustice System does. Currently, no one is "corrected" at the Suffolk County House of Corrections. After inner-city youth make a terrible decision, rather than getting them the proper help, we send them to get an accelerated Bachelor's degree in Criminality. They come out worse than they went in. After, most are placed on probation with conditions that are designed for recidivism - not reformation.

We need treatment for heroin addicts - not punishment as a first resort!
We need reformation for criminals - not punishment as a first resort!

Just as not every suburban heroin addict will get clean, not every inner-city youth will be reformed, but some are better than none.

Rachel Rollins ideas are not novel -

Connecticut -
Philadelphia -

Fox 25 ran a segment last week about Portugal's progressive approach to their heroin epidemic and it's results. Many in Massachusetts are lobbying for that approach.

Research Germany's Progressive approach to criminal justice -

Young Adults in the German Criminal Justice System -

Learn about the power to make a difference a prosecutor wields-

A prosecutor's vision for a better justice system -

Bad Behavior Won't Stop with Punishment -

You have much to learn.


I guess I have much to learn...

You had me at 'We need treatment for heroin addicts - not punishment as a first resort!'
I guess you really are full of baloney. Please, tell me where first time heroin busts are not diverted into a program. I understand about money and waiting times, but you make it sound like Rollins will bring in a brand new and novel way of 'treating' heroin addicts instead of locking them up, which simply isn't true. As a matter of fact, I predict that tomorrow morning AG will run a story from the Globe with the line 'Many of the crimes on the list, including trespassing, shoplifting, and drug possession, typically lead to probation, rather than jail time,...' *

Part of the problem is the fact that heroin addiction is usually associated with property crimes, as most heroin addicts don't have good paying jobs. So, we just broom all the crimes?

I guess we have much to learn.

* Ya, today's Thursday...

Rachel is going to turn

By on

Rachel is going to turn Boston into 1980s New York with her policy of not enforcing misdemeanors.



By on

I guess we'll wait for the next OCPF report, but the most recent data shows exactly 0 donations to Mr. Maloney from anyone who can actually vote in this election. For some reason the Herald wants to make him out to be a savior for "law-and-order" types, but it's not gonna happen.

Better to read this much more detailed interview with Rachael Rollins as opposed to the knee-jerk "I guess I'll quit my job and become a criminal now!" reporting we've seen in the last week.


Why isn't he required to serve out his full term

By on

that the VOTERS elected him to? Death or serious illness/injury are the only reasons an elected official should resign their office early - any other reason (especially to take another job) is totally unacceptable. Unfortunate how so many people don't understand that.


Quit your job

See if you can be forced to return to work.

Slavery ended in the Commonwealth just after the revolution.


Conley timing very odd. Rollins policy poorly articulated.

By on

As an earlier comment said, if Conley wanted to leave, why not wait less than 60 days until the election when the choice would be clear? Is this an opportunity for an ADA or someone else to get their three months at the top salary? An opportunity for Baker to make Rollins or Maloney the incumbent before the election and give them a "leg up?" If Conley really wanted out, why not leave months ago and negotiate with Baker to put his ADA Henning in there? Doesn't pass the smell test.

As for Rollins, she probably shouldn't have announced the policy publicly since it appears to give a green light to shoplifting, resisting arrest, drug distribution etc. Anyone familiar with the system knows those crimes aren't taken seriously by our disastrous courts anyway, but please don't broadcast it.

Of course the police officers will still make the arrests and hold the criminals until arraignment or bail. If she releases them nolle prosequi and they go out and kill someone (matter of time) she will have blood on her hands like Conley agreeing to a 364 day sentence for "pickpocket" on two violent bank robberies instead of 365 days because that would trigger deportation. The coddled immigrant showed his appreciation by slashing the throats of two MDs in South Boston. Great.


Talking out your asses

By on

We should send minors to prison for having a beer in their hands?


Or that someone whose only charge is resisting arrest should go to prison?

Really? You can't see through that?

Because that's what is primarily on her list. Or are those of you all whining just imagining what her list includes?


I said this on the first post here on UHUB.

This was an election tactic by Rollins that worked. If you read the fine print (she actually put it right on her website), she never said she wasn't going to prosecute these crimes, only that they would need "special" approval if she did. And she isn't going to make a decision on this, one of her ADA supervisors will.

I'm guessing the City of Boston has a few thousand shoplifting charges in the court system every year. Let's say 5,000. How many of those charged (not arrested) with shoplifting are facing their first offense? I'm guessing less than 5%. Those are easy ones where Rollins can just CWOF the case and if the person doesn't shoplift again nothing happens. That has been going on in Boston for probably the last 30 years or so. If someone steals something and when they go to court the next day we find out they have been arrested 20 times for stealing, and another 10 times for beating up women, what do you think Rollins will do? The same thing that happens now, prosecute the cases in probably the same way she does not.

Resisting arrest charge by itself? How many of those happen every year? I'm guessing less than 10, and if it does happen it is usually actually pretty serious (Driver of car doesn't know passenger has warrant for firearms. Police pull car over knowing gun passenger has a warrant and the driver interferes with the police and doesn't let them arrest his friend.) That is a legit resisting arrest charge which can be more serious than most of the list she describes.

Now she has to explain this to the Boston Police. The Boston Police could say "fine, this will save us manpower. We will not respond to any shoplifting, threat, or larceny under $1,200 calls and we can focus on traffic enforcment. This obviously gives thieves zero incentive to stop stealing (Rational choice theory I think they call it in regards to stealing). Now this isn't going to happen. Rollins is going to gell Gross that it isn't going to be any different that what was going on, only that some new programs are going to be installed to help drug addicts, theives and other small crimainals and that is a good thing.

Bottom line is the articles are right. Most of those charges are not prosecuted for first time offense, and possibly will be on subsequent offenses. Again, Rollins says she will prosecute any of those crimes after review and "permission". That happens now.