This was sent to me by The Committee for Public Counsel Services and has some new good language for your calls (See below) and tweets to #stopH4184. The Senate did not take this up this week, but they only have a short time before the session ends so we need to keep up the calls!

ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE IS NOT RELEASE ON PAROLE

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Diatchenko recognized the unique capacity of youth to change and be rehabilitated.  Consistent with the Court’s decision, statutory changes should include:

• A sentencing scheme that does not does not create de facto life.
  ♦ A range of not less than 18 years nor more than 22 years would adhere to the spirit of Diatchenko.

• Indices the court must consider, and make findings on the record, when determining the minimum term of a life sentence should include:
  ♦ The age at the time of the offense.
  ♦ Hallmark features of adolescence, including immaturity, impetuosity, and the ability to appreciate the risks and consequences.
  ♦ Family and home environment prior to and at the time of the offense.
  ♦ Extent of said person’s participation in the offense.
  ♦ The impact of family and peer pressure.
  ♦ History of prior felony convictions or adjudications.
  ♦ The potential for rehabilitation.

• Holding a youth found guilty of murder at the Youthful Offender Division of DYS until his 21^st birthday.

• Assuring any sentence imposed for offenses arising out of the same transaction and occurrence run concurrently.

• Placing such cases under juvenile court jurisdiction.

• Providing a right to counsel and experts for the complex parole hearings.
  ♦ Being incarcerated at a very young age and spending most of their lives in prison greatly diminishes the ability of these youth to mount (prepare and communicate) an effective presentation to the parole board that would demonstrate the appropriateness of their release.  Experts, such as psychologists and psychiatrists, are critical because they are best able to assist the parole board in assessing these individuals’ rehabilitation and of risk recidivism.

• Guaranteeing that parole hearings occur with regularity in order to motivate prisoners to grow and change.
  ♦ Evidence-based practices tell us that parole hearings should occur with regularity and should motivate prisoners to grow and change. Parole hearings should be used to acknowledge a prisoner’s challenges, provide guidance and identify attainable goals, and measure the prisoner’s progress.  Ten years in prison can feel like a lifetime and successfully rehabilitating oneself in a prison environment takes strength and commitment. By allowing a prisoner to receive the Parole Board’s guidance only once every decade lessens their likelihood of success. Right now, over sixty percent of the parole denials for lifers are the maximum setback – 5 years. A 10 year setback is simply unnecessary and would compromise the system of parole.

ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE IS NOT RELEASE ON PAROLE

 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that sentencing children to life in prison without the possibility of eventual release is unconstitutional and violates the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

• Massachusetts’s extreme sentencing statute was declared unconstitutional because it did not recognize that youth are “constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing” and did not provide a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.

• Our Court found, consistent with extensive scientific evidence and prior rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, that it is impossible to determine, at the time of sentencing, which youth are capable of rehabilitation and which are not.

• The Court’s ruling now allows judges to impose life sentences with parole eligibility between 15 and 25 years in cases involving the conviction of children for 1st degree murder.

• Because all children – even those who commit the most serious crimes – are still in the process of developing, all have the potential for transformation and redemption.

• Requiring youth to wait as long as 30 years before they can even approach the Parole Board, and providing for reviews up to 10 years after that, means that a person convicted when a child would reach their late 50s having had only one opportunity to go before the Parole Board.

• A sentencing range of 20 to 30 years, coupled with 10 year setbacks for parole eligibility, is de facto life without parole and is contrary to the Supreme Judicial Court’s prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment.

H.4184 – An Act Relative to Juvenile Sentences

• Creates de facto life sentences for children:
  ♦ Sentencing juveniles convicted of 1^st degree murder to 25 to 30 years before being eligible for consideration for parole and juveniles convicted of felony murder to 20 to 25 years

• Undermines the letter and spirit of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling that sentencing children to life in prison without a meaningful opportunity for release is:
  ♦ Unconstitutional and violates our Massachusetts Declaration of Rights

• Fails to acknowledge the Court’s recognition that: Young people have a unique capacity to change and to be rehabilitated

• Doubles the waiting period from 5 to 10 years before any lifer denied parole can return to the board:
  ♦ Encompasses both juveniles and adults
  ♦ Applies to anyone serving a life sentence for any offense, such as unarmed robbery