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

The copy below is from Fair Sentencing for Youth and folks this needs ACTION ASAP. Many other MA groups are supporting this too–criminal defense attorneys, ACLU folks, many youth orgs., activists and those who care about justice in Massachusetts! HERE IS THE NEW BILL proposed by Rep Chris Markey that puts together other previous versions and you can download and read the .pdf file. PLEASE TAKE ACTION and also you can tweet #stopH4184 and #maleg to your reps’ and senators’ twitter accounts, etc.

________________________________________________________________
“We just learned today that the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary is reporting a bill (called now H.4184, redrafted from other bills) out to the House for a floor vote this Wednesday.  .

Unfortunately, the redrafted bill contains several provisions which significantly undermine the Supreme Judicial Court’s recent decision granting individuals sentenced under Massachusetts unconstitutional former sentencing scheme a meaningful chance at parole after they had served at least 15 years in prison.

The bill sets the earliest period of parole eligibility at 20 years for those convicted of felony murder, and 25 years in other cases.  The bill also gives the Parole Board the unprecedented ability to impose a 10 year wait before an individual who is denied parole has the chance to go before the parole board again. We believe these provisions profoundly undermine the letter and spirit of the SJC’s decision, failing to recognize the unique capacity of youth to change and rehabilitate themselves, and allowing for excessively long time periods between parole hearings.

THIS TEN YEAR SETBACK APPLIES TO PERSONS SENTENCED AS ADULTS AS WELL AS THOSE SENTENCED AS JUVENILES – ALL LIFERS. 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.  Extending the setback period for lifers to 10 years would do exactly the opposite.  

In addition THIS 10 YEAR SETBACK APPLIES TO PERSONS SENTENCED AS ADULTS AS WELL AS THOSE SENTENCED AS JUVENILES – ALL LIFERS. 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.  Extending the setback period for lifers to 10 years would do exactly the opposite.

Please CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS TODAY to urge them to reject these extreme sentencing provisions for youth.  Let them know that you support these critical ingredients to fair sentencing for youth:

1.  No youth should have to wait longer than 15 years before having a first opportunity to go before the Parole Board.

2.  No person should be made to wait longer than 5 years between parole hearings.

TIME IS RUNNING SHORT, SO PLEASE CALL or EMAIL YOUR LEGISLATORS IMMEDIATELY. 

If you have a moment, please let us know how your calls go by emailing lindamalik@cfjj.org.  Thank you for supporting fair sentencing for youth!

Linda Malik
Fair Sentencing Campaign Coordinator
lindamalik@cfjj.org”
__________________________________________________________________

Please see my new post at the Women Review of Books Blog: “Money, Justice, and Bail:”

“I met Zoe Giannousis on a wintry evening at the community college in Lowell, Massachusetts, where I facilitate my Changing Lives Through Literature (CLTL) program. Along with Zoe, there were eight women, all struggling with court issues, family conflicts, and the dark well of abuse, addiction, and crime. In CLTL they gather with a judge, two probation officers, and me for a reading group—an alternative sentencing collaboration between academia and the courts that began almost 25 years ago, and that has now spread across the state and the country, and across the Atlantic to England. For the next fourteen weeks, as a condition of probation, they dive into animated discussions of books including Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye and Ann Tyler’s Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant.

Unlike the majority of the women in CLTL, however, Zoe had served time. This was not because of an actual crime she had committed. She had been locked up in the Massachusetts Correctional Institution (MCI)-Framingham in the Awaiting Trial Unit, where, according to the Massachusetts Women’s Justice Network (MWJN), more than forty percent of the women being held have not been found guilty.”  MORE