Tag Archives: Juvenile sentencing

Difficult Decisions: Statehouse Juvenile Justice Hearing

On the same day Senate Ways & Means Committee released its FY15 budget, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on Juvenile Justice issues.  At first glance, the Judiciary Committee’s hearing agenda appeared light, containing only ten bills.  Upon closer examination of the bills on the agenda, it was no surprise that the hearing room was packed.  The Essex and Suffolk County District Attorneys, a former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Juvenile Court, Senators Bruce Tarr, Barry Finegold, and Karen Spilka, Representative John Keenan, and the Chairman of the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee took part in the hearing.   

In late 2013, the BBA’s Council unanimously approved a set of juvenile justice principles supporting the elimination of juvenile life without parole sentences.   Shortly thereafter, the SJC ruled in the Diatchenko case that such sentences were indeed unconstitutional.  Read more about the case and our position here

The SJC decision specifically calls for juvenile offenders to receive a “meaningful opportunity” for parole, but leaves it to the legislature to define that term.  Many of the bills at Wednesday’s hearing focused on different ways to define this statement.  There was plenty of debate at the hearing and various bills on the docket call for anywhere from 10 to 35 years before juveniles convicted of first degree murder become eligible for parole. 

The bills also include various provisions on parole considerations for these offenders.  Listening to the testimony, the following issues came to the fore for legislative consideration:

  • Fairness –  This was the most popular word of the hearing.  What length of time until parole eligibility is fair?  Legislators and panelists alike raised fairness considerations for victims and their families, society generally and specific communities, as well as the defendant.  There were multiple levels of fairness considerations for defendants.   Some testifiers argued for long periods of time due to the heinous nature of these crimes.  Others asked for relative leniency due to the defendant’s age, underdeveloped brains, and potential felony murder conviction.  Multiple testifiers noted that more than 70% of those currently serving juvenile life sentences had co-defendants, 75% of whom are adults.  Furthermore, 30% of those juveniles in prison for life were sentenced to felony-murder, meaning they accompanied another who did the actual killing, and in most cases the older person served a shorter sentence after accepting a plea bargain.
  • Confidence in the justice system –  Those advocating for longer parole eligibility terms touted their confidence in the justice system, stating that only juveniles who committed the most heinous crimes were sentenced to life and thus merited a longer time before parole eligibility.  Those advocating for shorter parole eligibility terms expressed confidence in the parole board’s ability to determine whether a person was adequately rehabilitated before potential release.  They stressed that parole eligibility did not equate to release.
  • Potential for rehabilitation –  Testifiers advocating for shorter parole eligibility terms cautioned against the mere warehousing of convicts, and expressed concern that juveniles sentenced to life with long periods without parole eligibility would suffer due to lack of program and rehabilitative opportunities (priority is given to those closer to potential release) and the challenge of staying in touch with family and friends for such an extended period of time, a parole board consideration.

These are not easy issues, and we will pay close attention as these bills progress through the legislative process.   

– Jonathan Schreiber
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association
Comments are disabled for this blog. To submit your comments please e-mail  issuespot@bostonbar.org

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Juvenile Justice Through The Possibility of Parole

Following the BBA Council’s unanimous approval of a set of juvenile justice principles supporting the elimination of juvenile life without parole sentences, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruled in the case of Diatchenko vs. District Attorney for the District & Others that these sentences are indeed unconstitutional.  The plaintiff, Gregory Diatchenko, who had been serving a life without parole sentence for a murder he committed in 1981 at age 17, is immediately eligible for parole.  In addition, due to the retroactive implications for other juvenile life without parole convicts who have served at least 15 years, roughly 63 inmates will now become parole eligible for the first time.  However, as underscored by a recent editorial in the Boston Globe, “eligibility for parole” merely entitles a convict to a hearing.  At that point it is up to the parole board to consider whether the prisoner has changed and taken full responsibility for his or her actions. 

The BBA has long supported bills abolishing the juvenile life without parole sentences in prior legislative sessions.  The dialogue gained further momentum recently after last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama which held that juvenile life without parole sentences for minors are a “cruel and unusual” punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment.  Judges must consider the defendants’ youth and the nature of the crime before handing down a sentence without parole.

The SJC’s decision went beyond mere compliance with the Miller holding, explaining that the judges considered current scientific research showing that adolescent brains are not yet fully developed structurally or functionally before the age of 18.  Thus, a judge cannot ascertain with any reasonable degree of certainty that a juvenile is irretrievably depraved and deserving of the life without parole punishment. 

The SJC’s holding supports most of the substance of the BBA’s approved principles.  But the BBA also calls for individualized evidentiary sentencing hearings for juveniles, considering a number of issues specific to juveniles in addition to traditional factors required by law, as well as a statutory right to counsel at parole hearings for juveniles.

So what comes next?  Parole boards will begin hearing the cases of those juveniles sentenced to life without parole and making their determinations.  Furthermore, the legislature may put bills on the fast track to passage in order to bring the laws into compliance with this ruling.  We at the BBA applaud the SJC for their ruling and look forward to these next steps.

 – Jonathan Schreiber
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association
Comments are disabled for this blog. To submit your comments please e-mail  issuespot@bostonbar.org

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized