THE SAUGUS ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, JULY 8, 2022 Page 15 BHRC | FROM PAGE 9 sent to the House a measure that would repeal several archaic laws, still on the books in Massachusetts, which many people no longer see as criminal and/or may be unconstitutional. The bill would repeal archaic laws that intrude on an individual’s privacy regarding sexual activity by removing the statute that criminalizes sodomy, removing language that criminalizes “unnatural” acts and removing language pertaining to “common nightwalkers.” The bill would also establish a permanent law revision commission. The bill leaves in place statutes prohibiting prostitution and statutes prohibiting sex with animals. “In my America, there is a personal space the government has no business in,” said sponsor Sen. Will Brownsberger (D-Belmont). “These laws intrude into people’s personal space and they shouldn’t be on the books. The Supreme Court, for a while, has agreed with that. But lately, we are not sure where they are going. The repeal is long overdue but especially timely given [the recent] Supreme Court decision.” “At a time when conservative Supreme Court justices are invoking discriminatory 18th century laws, we want to make sure there are no laws in Massachusetts that invoke hateful treatment of the LBGTQ community or Puritan attitudes towards sex,” said Senate Judiciary chair Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton). “I’m also grateful that this legislation will repeal the common night walking statute, which has led to the mistreatment of many trans residents.” “It is undeniable that when it comes to human rights, we cannot rest on our assumptions at this moment in history,” said Sen. Julian Cyr (D-Truro). “First and foremost, the government has no business in people’s sex lives. Furthermore, in a commonwealth that prides itself on our social progressiveness, inclusivity and equality, our laws must refl ect these vital ideals. By removing harmful, homophobic and transphobic language from our statutes, we are taking a well overdue step to ensure the letter of the laws promotes equity and justice for the most vulnerable members of our population.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill). Sen. Brendan Crighton Yes CHANGE CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE LAW (S 2944) Senate 31-9, approved and sent to the House a bill that would make changes to the current civil asset forfeiture law that allows law enforcement and prosecutors to seize property which is alleged to have been involved in a crime. Under current law, the burden of proof is on the owner of the items who believes that their possessions were improperly forfeited. That person is required to demonstrate that these items were not involved in a crime. The bill puts the burden of proof on law enforcement and prosecutors who would be required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that property seized is in fact subject to civil asset forfeiture under Massachusetts law. Forfeiture hearings would also include accused individuals’ legal counsel and the bill also limits the value of items taken in civil asset forfeiture to $250 or less. “Massachusetts civil asset forfeiture laws are ranked among the worst in the nation,” said sponsor Sen. Becca Rausch (D-Needham). “The Senate took steps to change that … Through collaboration with law enforcement, social justice advocates and legislative partners, I believe the fi nal bill strikes a good balance between supporting the good work done by our public safety personnel and enhancing the forfeiture process to better protect Bay Staters from any unjust confiscation.” “In my capacity as Senate Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, I served as coChair of the Special Commission on Asset Forfeiture,” said Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton). “That special commission produced a powerful report calling for change to the commonwealth’s outdated approach to asset forfeiture. Massachusetts has one of the most unfair civil asset forfeiture laws in the country, with little due process - and has taken a bold step forward to reform that. For those facing criminal prosecution or those who are innocent co-owners of property that may have been tangentially related to crime, this bill represents transformational change for the good.” Opponents said the bill goes too far and off ered several unsuccessful amendments including one that would strike the right to free counsel and replace it with a commission to study whether counsel should be offered at no cost to indigents. Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), the chief opponent of the measure, did not respond to several requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to comment on why he opposed the bill. (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it). Sen. Brendan Crighton Yes JUVENILE DIVERSION (S 2942) Senate 32-8, approved and sent to the House a bill that would expand the number of offenses for which juvenile courts may divert accused juveniles from prison to community service. The measure gives juvenile judges the opportunity to decide, based on the facts of the case, if a child would be better served through a diversion program and receiving appropriate services in a community setting. “This legislation will reduce recidivism by providing more young people a chance to receive appropriate services in BHRC | SEE PAGE 16
16 Publizr Home