State’s highest court opens the way for second chances for some ‘lifers’
There are moments in history when the law, which often changes at a glacial pace, must follow science, which advances considerably faster. The Massachusetts criminal justice system just had one of those moments.
And because of it, Massachusetts will no longer be allowed to sentence 18- to 20-yearolds to life without the possibility of parole. Over time more than 200 individuals already incarcerated under sentences now deemed a violation of the state constitution will get a chance to petition for their freedom.
In a landmark 4-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court found that based on “precedent and contemporary standards of decency in the Commonwealth and elsewhere” it would constitute cruel or unusual punishment under Article 26 of the Massachusetts Constitution to sentence defendants in that age group of “emerging adults” to a life without parole sentence.
“Advancements in scientific research have confirmed what many know well through experience: the brains of emerging adults are not fully mature,” Chief Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote in the majority opinion. “Specifically, the scientific record strongly supports the contention that emerging adults have the same core neurological characteristics as juveniles have.”
That means they lack impulse control, are quicker to take risks, and are more susceptible to peer pressure. But they also have a greater capacity for change — an element that supported the case for a change in the law.
Budd also noted that “Massachusetts is one of only 10 states that currently require 18- through 20-year-old individuals who are convicted of murder in the first degree to be sentenced to life without parole.” Meanwhile a host of other states have, either by court decisions (Washington and Michigan), parole reforms (California), or changes in the law (Illinois, Colorado and Wyoming), recognized that emerging adults should be treated differently.
A 2013 SJC decision had already banned life without parole sentences for anyone under the age of 18.
The Thursday ruling came in a case involving Sheldon Mattis, who was 18 when he handed a gun to a friend; he was charged with being complicit in the 2011 murder of Jaivon Blake of Dorchester and later sentenced to life in prison. His codefendant, Nyasani Watt, who was convicted of shooting Blake, was 10 days shy of his 18th birthday at the time of the murder. He becomes parole eligible after serving 15 years. Now Mattis will have that same opportunity for parole.
“So many people whose lives have been wasted because of terrible, impulsive actions as young people will now have a chance to start over in the community and not cost taxpayers millions of dollars to warehouse them,” said attorney Lisa Newman-Polk, a former public defender whose practice includes a number of incarcerated individuals.
The court ruling is, however, a beginning, not an end.
As the chief justice wrote, “We must recognize the ‘unique characteristics’ of emerging adults that render them ‘constitutionally different’ from adults for purposes of sentencing. As such, they must be granted a ‘meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation’ before the Massachusetts parole board, who will ‘evaluate the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, including the age of the offender, together with all relevant information pertaining to the offender’s character and actions during the intervening years since conviction.’”
Of about 1,000 prisoners serving life without parole in Massachusetts, some 203 were 18 to 20 years old at the time of their crimes, according to one amicus brief filed in the case. However, the number of those who
Of about 1,000 prisoners serving life without parole in Massachusetts, some 203 were 18 to 20 years old at the time of their crimes, according to one amicus brief filed in the case.
will become immediately eligible for parole is likely closer to 130, according to the Committee for Public Counsel Services, which, along with the Parole Board is still trying to tally the numbers.
“There will be a push to demonize our clients — to scare the public into thinking that our high court is releasing dangerous people into society,” CPCS Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti said in a statement. “But that narrative fails to recognize how our system works. This opinion does not mandate release, it only mandates the Parole Board consider these people for release under supervision.”
But as Justice Scott L. Kafker noted in his concurring opinion, after the court ordered a similar review of the life sentences of juvenile offenders in 2013, of those who received parole hearings, 74 percent were granted parole.
And to him that demonstrated that “the possibility of redemption exists for the young, even those who have committed the most horrible crimes, after they have spent many years in prison maturing and taking responsibility for the terrible deaths that they caused in their youth.”
There are, of course, those who would argue — as Justice David A. Lowy did in his dissent — that “As the judiciary, we must proceed with extreme restraint when exercising our power to review punishment designated by the Legislature to determine whether it exceeds the bounds of Article 26’s requirements.”
Justice Elspeth B. Cypher agreed that “it is the Legislature, not the judiciary, that prescribes punishment.”
It is also true that the Legislature has been studying the issue since at least 2018 without any tangible result.
In the end, the high court looked at the scientific evidence and looked at years and years of what they saw as injustice and came up with a just solution — in a timely fashion. The rest will be up to the Parole Board, public defenders, and the prison rights advocacy bar. Follow-through won’t be easy. It never is. But this change in the system going forward was overdue.