« National Theater Chains Choose Not Show Movie Depicting the Assassination of President Bush | Main | We Support The Troops -- So What If We Don't Know What They Look Like »

Bait and switch at the Boston Globe

This morning's Boston Globe has a rather heart-tugging story about some people who oppose the current Criminal Offender Record Information system (CORI). Under the headline "Foes of arrest notification gather," they talk about how the database is leaving an indelible black mark on people's records, tainting them in the eyes of potential employers, landlords, and the like.

While reading the actual story, though, something struck me as odd.

The story starts out with a quote from Darrin Howell, who was three years ago for domestic violence and firearms charges. He says that he is routinely denied jobs because of that incident.

But as I read on, it became clear that Mr. Howell wasn't just arrested. He "spent a year in jail for those offenses."

So, intrigued by this apparent discrepancy, I decided to go straight to the horse's mouth.

According to the official web site of the Massachusetts Trial Court Law Library:

(7/22/03) According to Massachusetts Legal Services' booklet, The CORI Reader, there are legislatively authorized agencies that can access criminal records, but for the general public the following applies:

Crime victims. victim family members or witnesses to a crime, may "see the CORI with respect to a crime of a person charged with that crime, upon individual certification by the CHSB. Further, criminal justice agencies may disclose to such people other information, including evaluative information, if 'reasonably necessary for the security and well-being of such persons.'"

Any member of the general public may access CORI "when the 'CORI curtain is up.' This is complicated. The general public does not have access to most CORI, most of the time. For them, the 'CORI curtain' is down. But there are exceptions, when the curtain is up as to a particular COR! subject, and then the general public may get the CORI of that person. The curtain is up in situations where the CORI subject has been either --

(a) convicted of a crime for which the maximum possible imprisonment is 5 years or more, whatever the sentence he or she actually gets (even just a fine or probation), or

(b) is convicted of any crime and sentenced to incarceration.

"In either of these situations, right at the point of conviction, the curtain stays up, and the public may see the CORI, if, at the time the request for CORI is made --

the CORI subject is serving a sentence of incarceration, or is under probation or parole supervision, or

having been convicted of a misdemeanor (a crime for which the maximum is 2- 1/2 years in a county house of correction), he or she has been released from all custody or supervision for 1 year or less time, or

having been convicted of a felony (a crime for which the maximum is more than 2-1/2 years), he or she has been released from all custody or supervision for 2 years or less time, or

having been convicted of a felony, sentenced to a state prison and having "wrapped up" in prison (either having been denied parole or returned to prison for a parole violation), he or she has been released from custody for 3 years or less time. "

So we see that while the Boston Globe says the CORI program covers "arrests," CORI itself says it only deals with convictions. Simply being arrested isn't enough to get on their list.

Why would the Globe make such a mistake? It could be an innocent error by a headline writer. Or it could be aimed at blurring the line between those who have been arrested, then released uncharged, and those who have been found guilty of actual crimes.

It's certainly in character for the Glob. They like to lump together two groups that are separated by obedience to the law. They routinely call illegal aliens "immigrants," trying to tie together those who come here legally with those who sneak in or overstay their welcome.

But the IMPORTANT thing is that there is a group of people who feel oppressed, who feel victimized, by having to face the consequences of their choice to break the laws. Since that might damage their fragile self-esteem, and we certainly can't have THAT.

And the notion of holding people responsible for the consequences of their choices to go outside the law is just another old-fashioned, quaint concepts that needs to be tossed by the wayside.


Comments (22)

Yer missing a verb here; a ... (Below threshold)
Regret:

Yer missing a verb here; a kinda important one:

"who was three years ago for domestic violence"

Actually, I kinda, like, li... (Below threshold)
epador:

Actually, I kinda, like, liked the missing "e" at the end of the name of the paper.

"And the notion of holdi... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"And the notion of holding people responsible for the consequences of their choices to go outside the law is just another old-fashioned, quaint concepts that needs to be tossed by the wayside. "

A lot of those Republican old-fashioned traditional values are being challenged these days. Good thing Hastert and company are doing their best to keep the traditions alive...

But the way this post is written, Jay, it appears to be more of a smear against the Globe rather than a commentary on the topic of the Globe story. Ahh, those liberals in the media -- look at what they are up to now -- but I don't see any editorializing in the Globe story that supports your assertion that the Globe is doing anything wrong reporting this news -- that's what the free press is supposed to do.

Smearing the mainstream media for reporting the facts behind this story is a brownshirt tactic that I'm sure we will see more of as we approach the election. Convince the voting public that there is a liberal political agenda behind every news story (and every movie and play), and attempt to build a mistrust of the media among the gullible in the conservative voting base, is one of the tactics being employed by Republicans. There are signs that conservative attacks against "Hollywood" and the arts are also moving up the Republian hit-parade of lies as well - this blog has posts this morning that illustrate that as well.

Convincing Americans to turn off their televisions and not read newspapers may help keep the endless flow of Republican misdeeds away from voters, Jay - clearly that would benefit the Republican party at the polls, and ease Republican concerns that they are disenfranchising their base -- Foley and Hastert's antis are having a measurable effect in that direction right now.

Personally I think thinking conservatives can see right through this kind of tactic, and smearing the media and the arts for doing their jobs with this kind blog post will backfire against the Republicans.

That the Republican culture of corruption and deceit is being extended to all aspects of our daily lives, and creeping into our living rooms through veiled attacks such as this against the free press, is a concern to more than just liberals. America needs to know the truth, Jay, and we aren't getting the truth from Washington, or from either side of the blogosphere.

Creeping conservatism, under the guise of commentary and news -- is just downright -- creepy. We all know that attacking the arts and media is high on the Republican agenda, at least be honest and open about it.

They should have interviewe... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

They should have interviewed Lee about fragile self-esteem and how that effects one's "well being."

This condition tends to cause its sufferers to lose their perspective, ability to rationally argue a point, and leads to non-sequitur, bombastic arguments.

There is 12 step program for Lee. We just have to find it.

America needs to know th... (Below threshold)
Clay:

America needs to know the truth, Jay, and we aren't getting the truth from Washington, or from either side of the blogosphere.

Ahhhh, but we are getting the truth from forged National Guard documents (brought to you by those seekers of truth at CBS)? Okay, now ,i>I see the truth. Lee has his head stuck up..er..in the sand. Who are the brownshirts here? That would be the left who have been spoon-feeding lies disguised as truth since 1792.

Anyone else find it ironica... (Below threshold)

Anyone else find it ironically laugh-worthy to watch so-called "tolerant" leftists take up the meme that gay men, by default, should never be trusted around male adolescents and children?

Anywho, the conflation of "arrested" with "convicted" is very troubling because the objection seems to be the database. Again, it's a false appeal to Ludditism. As if making conviction information harder to get is better for society.

If the database contained all arrest records, or if false information was not being purged on a prompt basis, or if other safe guards on dissemination of this material were being unheeded, that would be a story worth featuring. Sob-sister articles about convicts being denied jobs leave me a little cold. Where are the stories sympathetic to the people victimized by criminals who slip through the cracks into jobs that give them access to information they then use to commit crimes?

THAT happens quite often.

Darleen has joined the rank... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Darleen has joined the ranks of the Republican liars. Beckel's comment, which she conveniently failed to quote or link to, said that gay men, like Foley, in positions of power who strike up friendships with 16 year old pages and ask for their pcitures should have raised questions.

"Democratic strategist Bob Beckel suggested this week that the mere fact Foley is gay should have "raised questions" about his friendships with pages."

Any responsible adult would agree with that - but Darleen apparently disagrees and, sadly, chooses to lie instead - suggesting that what Beckel said is that all gays are suspect period -- ignoring the fact that Foley was emailing and asking a 16 year old for his picture.

Wait, that's not fair -- perhaps she doesn't trust the mainstream media and chooses to read conservative blogs, Fox News, and listen to Hannity and Limbaugh instead -- who plant the lies in her head. Apparently she lacks the will to think for herself. I hope other conservatives choose to read newspapers and find out the truth, instead of buying into the Republican lies.

Lee-You keep using... (Below threshold)
Brian The Adequate:

Lee-

You keep using that word smear, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

You think a smear is to point out a crucial error of fact that by all appearances was a deliberate blurring of the issue at hand by the writer of the article in the Globe.

However, in your world, it is not a smear to assume that all people who disagree with you politically beleive that preying on teenagers is OK.

BTW Lee have you ever considered the probability that you may help your argument if you bothered to stay even remotely on topic?

OK, we can officially put d... (Below threshold)

OK, we can officially put down ClueLees on the list of those who think that the Boy Scouts did the RIGHT thing by forbidding gay Scoutmasters. Next, we'll be looking into gay schoolteachers and clergy -- two other groups who spend an inordinate amount of time around children. Then it's on to pediatricians.

And Lee still hasn't bothered to answer to this question:

In related news, Lee, Ray Nagin (D-Mayor of New Orleans) just endorsed the re-election of Congressman William Jefferson strike>Clinton (DAMN, I gotta stop doing that).

What was that about responsibility and self-policing? And who's endorsed Foley for re-election, anyway?

J.

Brian: "However, in your... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Brian: "However, in your world, it is not a smear to assume that all people who disagree with you politically beleive that preying on teenagers is OK." I didn't say that -- there are lots of Republicans and conservatives who are as disgusted as I am over Foley's beavior and Hastert's cover up. Sadly, there a lot of conservative liars, upset over the loss of Republican votes that will result, who choose to lie about the facts, and blame the media and Hollywood, instead of doing the right thing and cleaning house.

Cleaning house this close to the election might mean losing more votes, so they do the dishonest thing and lie instead.

The Jay burped: "OK, we can officially put down ClueLees on the list of those who think that the Boy Scouts did the RIGHT thing by forbidding gay Scoutmasters. Next, we'll be looking into gay schoolteachers and clergy -- two other groups who spend an inordinate amount of time around children. Then it's on to pediatricians."

Yes, if ANY gale male uses their position of power and authority over youths to sexually prey on them, as Foley did -- yes Jay -- you should look into Scoutmasters and schoolteachers and clergy who do that -- just as Hastert should have looked into Foley.

If a gay male pediatrician asked my 16 year old son to email him his picture I'd be concerned -- but Republicans -- who are more concerned with maintaining power than they are concerned with protecting 16 year old pages entrusted to their care -- sadly aren't concerned.

I don't know how you "traditional family values" folks, who then turn right around and protect sexual predators, can sleep at night.

gay men, like Foley, in ... (Below threshold)

gay men, like Foley, in positions of power who strike up friendships with 16 year old pages and ask for their pcitures should have raised questions.

Oh yeah, Lee....can't trust, by default, any gay men as teachers, doctors, nurses, scout leaders, sport coaches, judges, police ...

Hey, I can think of all sorts of adults with positions of "power" in contact with teens. Let's just ban gays from all of 'em, right, Lee?

There was not a friggin' thing in those emails that would, on its own, raise suspicion unless you figure GAY MEN can't be trusted around male teens.

Lee, you are such the leftbot tool

Sexual PREDATOR?Yo... (Below threshold)

Sexual PREDATOR?

You know what I hate about word inflation, that it dilutes the phrase so that real predators become things people yawn at.

There is nothing, nothing to suggest that Foley -- creepy lech that he is -- ever had any sexual contact with a MINOR.

He had sex with a 21 y/o...but even in ALL states, that's legal.

Keep riding that "gay men can't be trusted" hobbyhorse, Lee. It's very amusing and very revealing.

"Oh yeah, Lee....can't t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Oh yeah, Lee....can't trust, by default, any gay men as teachers, doctors, nurses, scout leaders, sport coaches, judges, police ...."

That position is one that is supported by a lot more Republicans than Democrats, Darleen. I don't subscribe to that theory myself.

"There was not a friggin' thing in those emails that would, on its own, raise suspicion unless you figure GAY MEN can't be trusted around male teens."

Foley's request for a picture of the 16 year old was a huge red flag, Darleen. My position is supported by the text of the additional emails and IMs which showed that Foley was indeed a sexual predator on the prowl -- which proves that the picture request was in fact reason to be concerned.

"There is nothing, nothing to suggest that Foley -- creepy lech that he is -- ever had any sexual contact with a MINOR."

Foley used his position of authority over under-aged males to solicit sexual favors. How any woman could defend that kind of behavior is beyond me, but apparently die-hard conservatives will do just about anything to hold onto power -- like lie about what Beckel said, and lie when you frame my position as one of "gay men can't be trusted", when what I've repeatedly said is a 52 year old gay man who acts inappropriately towards minors should have given Hastert - who was entrusted with the care of under-age pages, reason to look further.

Repeating the Republican talking point that Democrats are dissing gays is rather Pavlovian, Darleen - and the more you do it, the more your lies make you look so darn pathetic.

You just might lose more votes than you think you might gain, as thinking conservatives can easily see through your lies...

Re LEE: Does an employer ha... (Below threshold)
John Simpson:

Re LEE: Does an employer have the right to know if a potential employee has been convicted and incarcerated for a violent crime? Should a school be able to find out whether a potential employee molested children, or is that a privacy issue, like where the Globe opines against the Sex Offender registry as an undue invasion of privacy? Considering the Left's hatred of authority figures and its sympathy for merciless criminals like Tookie Williams and Willie Horton, it is totally in character for the Globe to side with ex-cons over the rights of citizens to be aware of the dangerous among us until tragedy strikes, after which incidents they usually blame the victims or society for their violence, then plead for mercy and understanding for these thugs. Just check their archives. Let's face it: when you consider Tookie a hero and role model, yet refer to Bush as Adolf Hitler in the same breath, it defies reason and logic, and I am no fan of Bush. It is not privacy rights and freedoms left-wing rags like the Globe advocate. It is anarchy and sympathy for the Devil, and it has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with wrong-headed liberalism. So whose side are you on, if I didn't know?

"Re LEE: Does an employe... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Re LEE: Does an employer have the right to know if a potential employee has been convicted and incarcerated for a violent crime?"

Yes. No one, including the Boston Globe, suggested otherwise, as far as I can tell. Yes, it's a problem for criminals who have "paid their debt to society" and then have their past following them for the rest of their lives, but as a manager who has hired several hundred employees over my career I appreciate the opportunity to find out an applicant's past record.

It's a matter of public record, and should remain that way. I don't see the Globe disputing that in their article. Poor Jay feels the Globe was wrong for reporting the news that criminals are concerned about this. I ike being informed myself.

"it is totally in character for the Globe to side with ex-cons over the rights of citizens to be aware of the dangerous among us until tragedy strikes,"

Let's drop the political partisanship and rhetoric, John, and get down to the facts. What words in the Globe article say to you that the Globe "sides with ex-cons"? Be specific, -- cut and paste a quote, please.

Lee: You need me to cut and... (Below threshold)
John Simpson:

Lee: You need me to cut and paste a quote from the Globe to prove that they sympathize with the worst dregs of our society? You're kidding, right? By the way, I was born and raised in a housing projects in Cambridge, I've seen the fallout from liberal policies the Globe supported and the legislature passed. Sounds nice on paper, but they suck in reality. I am long gone now and will never return to that liberal sewer. No one hates Communism more than those who suffered under it, and that Fallujah on the Charles is the perfect case in point. By the way, if you want a classic example of where such delusional liberalism had a lethal effect, look no further than the case of John Henry Abbott. On that, I rest my case.

"You need me to cut and ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"You need me to cut and paste a quote from the Globe to prove that they sympathize with the worst dregs of our society? You're kidding, right?"

Well, John, that is the topic of this post. So yes -- for a minute there I thought you were serious about the concerns you raised about the Globe's integrity, and not just talking out of your *ss.

Guess I was wrong...

LEE: Here's your cut and pa... (Below threshold)
John Simpson:

LEE: Here's your cut and paste, as requested:


It's hardly a shocker that Norman Mailer could show up at a place like Cambridge, Mass., and win big applause with a speech attacking President Bush. After all, employees of Harvard University gave more money to John Kerry's presidential campaign than people who work anywhere else (except the University of California). What made the standing ovation for the novelist so disappointing, though, was that it came from a great big pack of journalists.

Claims of media bias were a major theme during this past election year - from Dan Rather's doctored documents questioning Bush's military service to a convention of minority journalists loudly cheering Kerry when he addressed them in August. But conservatives who want proof of their longstanding claims that the mainstream media harbor a liberal bias could do worse than ordering the audio recordings of the Cambridge conference that are on sale from its sponsor, Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism.

They would hear laughter and applause from reporters after Mailer said he wished he "was young enough to thrash" Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and scattered applause when he claimed that it was not Jesus but "the devil who speaks to George Bush every night."

Admittedly, some of the attendees were academics, publicists and students, so it's hard to say who was laughing at which remark. But the thousand-member audience was dominated by freelance writers and editors and reporters from nearly every major paper in the country. None of the dozen people who stood up to question Mailer challenged any of his political assertions. And only a few failed to stand and applaud at the end of a speech that had characterized Bush as "lord of the quagmire" in Iraq.

"I'm a newspaperman - these people don't seem to understand what their role in society is," said Jack Hart, managing editor of the Portland Oregonian, which cosponsored the conference along with the Boston Globe and the Poynter Institute (which owns the St. Petersburg Times and Governing magazine, where I work). "It makes me very uncomfortable."


By the way, Norman mailer was chief among those who argued for and got Jack Henry Abbott's life sentence commuted to time served. Susan Sarandon even named her baby Jack Henry after Abbott. Six weeks after he was released and did the obligatory liberal tour among Manhattan's literati, he killed a bar waiter, which makes every lib who supported his commutation an accessory to murder, since that waiter would still be alive had Abbott stayed in prison.

Note that the Globe co-sponsored Mailer's conference. Abbott's name is somehow MIA from the discussion. Small wonder. The Globe also supported Tookie William's commutation, as well as Dukakis' policies that led to Willie Horton's escape on furlough and rapacious rampage in Maryland. Note that Horton was not extradited back to Massachusetts.

Any other questions as to who repeatedly takes the side of evil men?

John, interesting yuhmmm- q... (Below threshold)
Lee:

John, interesting yuhmmm- quote - but I don't find that anywhere in the article Jay quoted and linked to. In fact, it would appear that what you quoted wasn't from the Globe at all - it looks like a rant or diatribe from some conservative blog.

So you're claims that the Globe was siding with ex-cons was just bulls*t then, right? That's what I thought...

What's the point, Lee? I'm ... (Below threshold)
John Simpson:

What's the point, Lee? I'm going to pay to surf the Boston Globe archives to find some article that's going to what, change your whole perspective so you'll say, oh yeah, liberals are on the wrong side of the argument? Go wherever you want, the Globe, the NY Times, the ACLU, and you will consistently find opinions and articles that clearly establish who the Devil's Advocates are. Example: remember Cambridge Judge Maria Lopez, who gave probation to a transvestite who held a screwdriver to a nine-year-old boy's throat while molesting him, then cussed out the prosecutor who objected? She now has her own TV show in LA, what does that tell you? How about Snoop Dogg stating that Tookie Williams IS MLK, though I don't remember MLK blowing four people away with a shotgun? Not to mention the TRUE story of John Henry Abbott, which you conveniently omit from your replies. Mailer says he'd thrash Bush if he were younger, yet he embraced Abbott, whom he helped free to kill again. The evidence is out there, but like most liberals you refuse to look at it or ever accept it, since it would bodyslam your moral equivocation to the mat. You know, the best thing about banging your head against a wall is when you stop, and your consistent defense of the Globe and obvious liberal mindset, one you refuse to change regardless of what facts are provided only proves to me you a liberal idiot. I knowq who's full of sh*t here, and it ain't me. EOM.

Observe Lee's idiocies,... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Observe Lee's idiocies,

    Foley's request for a picture of the 16 year old was a huge red flag, Darleen.

So says you, only with the benefit of hindsight.

Did he ask the boy to send him a picture of himself naked, or in some other sexual pose? Did he ask him any sexual questions or proposition him? Or is it that you simply cannot imagine that someone can ask for another person's picture without there being some prurient reason behind it?

Let's go to the parents of the page's own statement that they released to CNN:

[Congressman Alexander (R-LA)] explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did WE think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation.

It did not raise a flag with the parents of the page in question - those e-mails were simply not enough to start an investigation or start asking questions that could very well destroy an innocent man. Suffice it to say, I will take the parents' word over yours.

    My position is supported by the text of the additional emails and IMs which showed that Foley was indeed a sexual predator on the prowl -- which proves that the picture request was in fact reason to be concerned.

This is something liberals excel at. Using hindsight in monstrously illogical ways to prove that they have foresight. Lee is here ridiculously claiming that the IMs discovered two weeks ago should have led the Speaker to launch an investigation last year.

MartinLee thinks i... (Below threshold)

Martin

Lee thinks it was a red flag because Foley is gay.

And he keeps saying that Foley was prowling for "sexual favors" yet not ONE sexual contact with a minor has surfaced. Indeed, the one former partner of his that had a one night stand with him was 21 at the time and has said that Foley was adament that he doesn't fool around with pages.

Exactly how does this make Foley a "predator" and Studds NOT one?

Of course, we get this fake outrage from people who have no problem with Billy Jeff having sex with an intern in the oval office, or with 15 year old girls getting abortions without their parents' knowledge, or hot blonde female teachers having sex with male high schoolers, or Hollywood celebs doing all manner of adult/adolescent trysts.

It's not about Foley at all.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy