The governor's seat is open this year in Massachusetts. We have 4 candidates: the Republican Lt. Governor Kerry Healy (who at times during this very conservative Mormon Republican Governor's tenure has seemed like a reasonable woman, who was willing to stand up for women's choice), a Democrat Deval Patrick (who served in the Clinton administration in civil rights post ... i'm too lazy to look it up), an independent Christy Mihos, and a green/rainbow party candidate, Grace Ross.

B/c this is the United States of America, only Healy and Patrick are truly viable candidates.

Patrick has been way ahead in the polls. I'm gonna vote for him.

Even though he is now labeled as "supporting rapists."

At some point - either during or after the most recent debate, Healy released some information stating that Patrick had (in the mid 90s, I think) written letters on behalf of a convicted rapist urging his parole. Our Fox affiliate spent some time in a round table setting yesterday morning blasting him for loving rapists and being "soft on crime." Patrick's response was that he was reacting to evidence that the man had an unfair trial, perhaps tainted by racism.

Now today it is coming out that Patrick actually gave MONEY to the rapist. He gave him MONEY.

So of course, that's all over the headlines, too. That Patrick is financially supporting rapists, and what is WRONG with this man.

Guess what he gave the $$ for? A DNA test. To be certain that the man committed the crime. The result of the DNA test actually proved that the guilty verdict was proper. And Patrick stopped writing letters upon those results.

Yet, we must categorize this bleeding heart liberal as "supporting rapists." We won't consider him a truth-seeker; or someone who is on the side of justice (i.e., if the DNA shows the guy DID NOT DO IT, then someone is not wrongfully convicted).

The message boards on boston.com include people sharing their opinion that Democrats have no business complaining about Representative Foley's behavior, and then condoning Patrick's.

Huh? Isn't that apples and oranges? Wouldn't that be a little more comparable if it came out that in 1991, Patrick raped someone?

I think I understand the complaints that Patrick wrote the letters more than I do the complaints over the monetary contribution. The letters were possibly written without a full examination of the case. It was apparently a high profile case at the time, and there were scientists, politicians and scholars raising issues about the fairness of the trial. Patrick probably should have looked into it more.

But the money? That did nothing more than clear up questions. If the DNA test proved that an innocent man was convicted of a brutal crime - wouldn't even the most conservative people want to know that? I mean, doesn't it follow that a brutal rapist is still functioning as a part of society, b/c the criminal justice system failed?

funding dna tests is not eviltude.

posted by Zuska @ 10:38 AM

0 Comments: