For those of you who didn’t have a chance to go, the Criminal Justice Forum at Harvard Law School for Gubernatorial Candidates, per my post in Boston Magazine, turned out to be an exercise in free speech. For some, it was also a frustrating realization that two hours can barely scratch the surface of complicated issues and policies that people care deeply about. For those who did attend on March 13th—more than 350—congratulations on exceedingly civil ways of shunning anti-gay pastor Scott Lively’s views while listening with a questioning mind to Evan Falchuck, Mark Fisher, Steve Grossman, and Juliette Kayyem. As candidates put forth their positions, this audience was not just taking it in. They had opinions.
I thought I’d share some of the questions that didn’t get asked and some of the tweets that helped to define how the audience responded to this event. I also hope that candidates will take the time to put forth clearer and more specific answers to many of the questions important to the audience.
Live tweeting from events is au courant today, and there were some great tweets. Prisoner Legal Services of Massachusetts (PLS) pointed out that Juliette Kayyem said “You rarely get good policy, good morals and lower cost in criminal justice.” They added that on race in criminal justice, Kayyem said “The laws are blind but they impact certain communities more than others.“ PLS quoted Steve Grossman, “More prisons, mandatory minimums, & undercutting judicial discretion are the wrong approach,“ and “I will use every tool at my disposal to stop prison expansion;” From Evan Falchuk, “We are the most progressive state in country. Seriously? We’re still shackling prisoners in labor. Needs to end.“
EPOCA (Ex-prisoners and Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement) was impressed by Grossman’s calling for” freezing prison construction, totaling mandatory minimums, and funding drug treatment and job training.” They also understandably wondered “Why are Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker not at the forum hosted by the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice?”
Since all the candidates were invited, I might suggest that perhaps they did not want to get grilled about their positions? Don Berwick, who could not attend, at least sent a video with his progressive positions outlined.
Some of the most insightful and critical tweets were from Jason Lydon of Black and Pink. Lydon tweeted that “Evan Falchuk: first person to mention race.” Falchuk said: “Get at the root causes of crime… Follow data driven and evidence based practices.” Lydon also added that it took awhile for Kayyem to talk about racism, and that while Grossman said he wanted to “leave no one behind,” he needed to “TALK about how people of color are disproportionately unemployed and in poverty.” Lydon felt Mark Fisher wanted a “‘blind’ jobs programs” ignoring race so that all people were “equal under the law.” Said Lydon, “He lives in imaginary world.” Lydon also pointed out that Fisher “highlighted Chris Christie and Scott Walker as governors he wants to be like. Yikes.”
Evan Falchuk tweeted: 
“Honored to join Criminal Justice Forum last nite at the Houston Institute – reform is one of most impt opptys for next #Magov.” Agreed!
Audience members wanted to know how candidates proposed to pay for services they wanted such as increased mental health services, veterans’ courts and workforce development for returning prisoners; how might they deal with wrongful convictions and if they might insist that police interrogations be videotaped; how they might stop prison staff bringing drugs into prisons; their views on solitary confinement, the lack of commutations and the horrendous cutback in those being paroled; if candidates supported wire-tapping; what steps they might take to stop the current Finegold-Tarr bill to insist of thirty-five years of time for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder; how they planned to hold sheriffs accountable for rehabilitation of prisoners; and what they felt should be done about incarcerating immigrants. Would anyone see to it that the cuurent “gag order” that exists for the Department of Corrections is lifted so that the public might begin to see that ex-prisoners are not the monsters they are portrayed but people who are making many contributions to society?
There were many who stood and turned their back when Lively spoke–he’d been dis-invited then re-invited last minute in the name of free speech, ironic after he admitted on the panel that he didn’t know if he really wanted the job of governor; several from Harvard’s LGBT student organization, LAMDA, held signs that had slogans such as “No Hate in the State House.”
The moderators, Professor Charles Ogletree and Judge Nancy Gertner had an impossible job trying to move this discussion away from sound bites. I hope it is not the last time we try to facilitate real conversation on criminal justice issues. I’d like to think of it as only the beginning in a long race for governor. It is for many of us, one of the defining issues of the 2014 race.
