Massachusetts judge orders release of man who repeatedly raped a 12-year-old boy


BOSTON, MA.- Radio talk show host Michael Savage coined the phrase, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.”

For proof of that, look no further than the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Superior Court Judge Heidi Brieger.

WBUR is reporting that a Massachusetts man who was convicted of repeatedly raping a 12-year-old boy was ordered released from jail on Friday due to being “vulnerable” to coronavirus.

The only thing this monster should be “vulnerable” to is getting a healthy dose of the cocktail administered to death row inmates to end their miserable lives. But this is where we are at in 2020, where dirtbags like this are released back into society while people who bust a curfew are arrested and held on bond. This is like a bad Hollywood movie.

Glenn Christie, 54 who is apparently confined to a wheelchair, was ordered released from the Massachusetts Treatment Center by Brieger, with the condition that he tests negative for COVID-19, according to the New York Post.

Christie was serving his sentence relative to a case where he was convicted of child rape and indecent assault on a child under 14 and was being held for a probation violation according to the WBUR report.

 Christie’s attorney David Rangaviz said that two inmates at the facility including one of Christie’s former roommates have died of the virus.

According to the report, Rangaviz started filing motions on behalf of Christie a few weeks ago, arguing it’s impossible to prevent the spread of the virus in jails and prisons.

“I wish I wasn’t right,” Rangaviz told the station. “This was a foreseeable disaster if anyone cared enough to start acting quickly.” Just wondering if Christie had any concern while he was violating a 12-year-old boy. Somehow, we doubt it.

The Salem News reported that Christie was on a 10-year probation period after he completed the prison term for the rapes, which occurred in the city of Lynn, MA.

Christie received a sentence of one to two years for the probation violation, which was appealed. That request was denied, however the Supreme Judicial Court ordered the judge to reconsider the case Wednesday due to the pandemic, as well as the more than a dozen reported cases at the Massachusetts Treatment Center, the report said.

“The health risks to a person in custody caused by the pandemic constitute changed circumstance,” which entitle Christie to a new hearing, according to Chief Justice Ralph Gants. “We also conclude that, in conducting that (new) review, a judge must give careful consideration not only to the risks posed by releasing the defendant—flight, danger to the community and likelihood of further criminal acts—but also during this pandemic, to the risk that the defendant might die or become seriously ill if kept in custody.”

Not for nothing judge, but that sounds just fine to us.

Rangaviz told the court that Christie has medical conditions such as hypothyroidism, as well as possible thyroid cancer, kidney disease and spina stenosis, the report noted. Karma.

“Mr. Christie was ordered released this morning by the Superior Court!” Rangaviz tweeted Friday. “There are so many more lives to save, but it is an unbelievable relief to get him released while it appears he may have dodged this ongoing outbreak in this facility.”

Rangaviz’s Twitter account is private therefore no link to the tweet was available.

Wonder if Rangaviz would be that enthusiastic if it was HIS son who was brutalized by this monster?

LET has a private home for those who support emergency responders and vets called LET Unity.  We reinvest the proceeds into sharing their untold stories. Click to check it out.

Colorado woman uses red flag law against officer who shot and killed her knife-wielding son

Meanwhile, WBUR reported that the court’s 45-page ruling held that pre-trial detainees not charged with certain violent offenses, as well as those held on technical probation and parole violations are eligible for hearings to determine if they can be released.

It does not affect prisoners who have already been sentenced.

“We agree that the situation is urgent and unprecedented and that a reduction in the number of people held in custody is necessary,” the ruling read.

“We also agree with the Attorney General and the district attorneys that the process of reduction requires individualized determinations, on an expedited basis, and in order to achieve the fastest possible reduction, should focus first on those who are detained pretrial who have not been charged with committing violent crimes.”

The ruling noted that crimes which would not be eligible for early release included violent crimes, such as assault and battery, domestic violence, and certain sex offenses.

The justices ordered that sheriffs, district attorneys, and the defense bar should review any potential eligible cases, and that hearings should be “held within two days of filing their motions for release.”

The Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Public Defender Agency of Massachusetts, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts filed an emergency petition to the court.

The petition read:

Outbreaks in our prisons will, of course, imperil the lives of incarcerated people, but they will also endanger correctional officers and medical staff, their families, and their communities, as staff cycle through the facilities,” the petition reads. “The more people who contract the virus, the more treatment they will need, and the more precious resources their treatment will require. Prison outbreaks imperil us all.

The petition did not go without its detractors. The news source says that more than a dozen briefs were filed in response to the petition, including opposition from seven of the state’s district attorneys, arguing that releasing broad categories of prisoners were a public safety risk, and also would stretch community support services to accommodate a large number of prisoners.

The DA’s also added that they believed it was a violation of the separation of powers for the court to amend the law on revising or revoking a criminal sentence, arguing that “any suspension of a lawfully imposed sentenced violates” the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and “the power to suspend laws lies only in the legislature and it is not for the judiciary to infringe upon.”

Four district attorneys argued for the releases, and two of the four were no surprise—Northwestern DA David Sullivan and Suffolk DA Rachael Rollins (Soros hack), along with Middlesex County DA Marian Ryan and Berkshire County DA Andrea Harrington. All four said that the health “crisis” gives the court the authority to grant the releases.

Of course, another political hack, Attorney General Maura Healy’s office supported the SJC decision

“Our office does not know of any Massachusetts precedent directly addressing the judiciary’s authority to revise and revoke sentences in circumstances like the extraordinary ones in which we find ourselves,” said her office in a post-argument response.

“It remains the Attorney general’s view that in light of those circumstances, the separation of powers would not be offended.”

A so-called “special master” was appointed to work with all stakeholders to expedite hearings on the motions for release.

The DOC has implemented some programs within the jails in order to help mitigate the virus in their facilities. One such change involves a sleeping arrangement where a prisoner on the top bunk faces one way, while the prisoner on the bottom bunk faces the other way, which is based on CDC guidelines which assist in the 6-foot social distancing guidelines.

The report also notes that they are staggering meal and recreation times to promote social distancing.

Some sheriffs are not happy about the ruling from the SJC.

“If these inmates were released from custody, what would prevent them from congregating, recreating, and eating within 6 feet from one another if they chose to do so?” Berkshire County Sheriff Thomas Bowler asked.

“Martial law has not been imposed. If we did lockdown inmates to force separation, the petitioners who brought this action would complain about those conditions.”

Absolutely 100% correct sheriff.

Of course, there are those who are not happy about the ruling and would probably be happy if every prisoner in every prison in the state were released, no matter their charges.

“We feel fairly certain that the numbers within these facilities is very high and are very concerned about what we anticipate will be a lot of sick people,” said Victoria Kelleher, president of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The hell with the people who they victimized.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Related Posts