Mass. high court considers extending the age limit for mandatory life sentences in prison

Massachusetts’ highest court is again taking up the question of whether people under the age of 21 should automatically be sentenced to life in prison if they are convicted of first degree murder.

On Monday, the state Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in two cases that ask whether it is constitutional for people between the ages of 18 and 20 — who are sometimes referred to as “emerging adults” — to receive mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Currently in Massachusetts, those under 18 are not sentenced to life without parole, but it remains the mandatory sentence for those 18 and older who are convicted of first degree murder.

A ruling in these cases from the SJC could take that mandatory sentence off the table for anyone under 21. If it does, defense attorneys said Massachusetts would be among the first states in the country to take such a step.

In both cases before the court, young people were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes that occurred before they turned 21. In one case, Sheldon Mattis was convicted in the fatal shooting of Jaivon Blake in Dorchester in 2011. Mattis was 18 at the time of the shooting. In the other case, Jason Robinson was convicted of participating in an armed robbery that resulted in the murder of a Brighton business owner in 2000. Robinson was 19 at the time of the robbery.

Attorneys for the defendants argued Monday that scientific research shows the brains of emerging adults are still developing, and they are capable of rehabilitation. They also pointed to studies showing there is little distinction between the impulsivity of a 16-year-old compared to a 20-year-old. The attorneys argued the research demonstrates that even people who are 20 often do not consider the consequences of their actions.

The attorneys told the court that the parole board should have the opportunity to determine whether a young offender remains in prison after being incarcerated for at least 15 years.

“We’re not asking you to release anybody from prison,” said defense attorney Ryan Schiff. “All we’re asking is that rather than throwing away the key, you place that key under the careful guard of the parole board.”

Prosecutors argued that a judge should decide the appropriate sentence for a person convicted of murder. They said the judge overseeing the case could make a determination based on an individualized sentencing hearing, and they said some 18- to 20-year-olds are mature enough to receive a life without parole sentence.

“There is a variance in the rate in which they mature, and these individuals — in very relevant circumstances — can have a brain and make decisions that is very much functioning like an adult,” said Cailin Campbell, special Suffolk County assistant district attorney. “You cannot say with certainty that a 20-year-old as opposed to a 19-year-old as opposed to an 18-year-old has not fully matured.”

The justices had tough questions for both sides. They expressed concerns about how a judge would determine which young offenders should be eligible for parole and which should not.

“If the experts can’t agree how can a trial judge?” Justice Scott Kafker asked.

They also spent considerable time focused on previous legal precedents, such as their ruling banning life without parole sentences for anyone convicted of murder before the age of 18.

Justice Elspeth Cypher asked defense attorneys whether brain development continues throughout life, and why people between the ages of 18 and 20 should be considered differently than other adults.

Justice Scott Kafker said Massachusetts does not allow life without parole sentences for those under 18 and is “already ahead of many other states.” Kafker asked where the courts should draw the line at the age of adult responsibility.

“I suspect in two years you’re going to be back doing 23-year-olds and doing the 23-year-old argument,” Kafker said.

Schiff responded by outlining instances where the age of maturity was raised to 21 for things such as buying alcohol or marijuana, or getting a firearm license. He said in many cases 21 is considered the age of adulthood.

“Where is the distinction for adulthood and childhood set for many purposes?” Shiff asked. “It’s just not true that it’s solely 18.”

The state’s highest court has previously considered the constitutionality of life without parole sentences for young offenders convicted in first degree murder cases. In 2019, the justices asked a superior court judge to review these cases and issue a report on the latest research into brain development after the age of 17.

In his 2022 report, the judge, Robert Ullman, wrote that late adolescents “exhibit a greater degree of risk-taking” and “are more susceptible to peer influence” than adults. He also found that late adolescents “have a greater capacity for change and reformation” than do adults.

Ultimately, Ullman found that mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for defendants who were 18-20 years old at the time of their crimes would be unconstitutional and violate protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

An estimated 200 people in Massachusetts are serving mandatory life without parole sentences for murders committed when they were between 18 and 21. An amicus brief filed by the Boston University Center for Anti-Racist Research and other groups indicates that Black people are serving such sentences at 16 times the rate of white people.

A brief filed by almost two dozen retired judges and both the Massachusetts and Boston Bar Associations argued that the parole board should determine a person’s capacity to rehabilitate, not a judge in sentencing hearings.

“Such hearings invite inconsistencies, are influenced by unconscious bias, and ask judges to make impossible predictions about whether young offenders are’permanently incorrigible,’ ” the brief said. “Respectfully, amici implore this Court not to burden sentencing judges with the impossible task of determiningpermanent incorrigibility for offenders who are, neurologically, theequivalent to juvenile offenders.”

Massachusetts is one of 11 states in which life in prison without parole is the only possible sentence after an adult conviction for the most serious murder charge.After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional, the SJC banned life without parole sentences for those under 18.

During Monday’s hearing, attorneys pointed to data in a brief filed by the Committee for Public Counsel Services about those who became eligible for parole after the SJC banned life without parole sentences for those younger than 18. The brief looked at more than 60 people in Massachusetts who were sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before they were 18. The data show that since the SJC’s 2013 ruling, 74% of those who had parole hearings were released. Just three of them were cited for parole violations. 

“This court is in a unique position from every other court in every other state,” Robinson’s attorney, Rosemary Scapicchio, told the SJC Monday. “You now have 10 years of data from the parole board about young offenders.”

Massachusetts and other states have been moving toward changing the way the criminal legal system handles young offenders. In 2013, Massachusetts raised to 18 the age when someone can be criminally prosecuted as an adult. Before then, 17-year-olds were charged as adults regardless of the crime.

Other states have taken steps to raise the age at which mandatory life without parole sentences are allowed. The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences for those under 21 are unconstitutional. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that courts must consider how youth up to age 19 are different from adult offenders for purposes of sentencing.

A ruling from the SJC could come as early as this summer, although some experts predict the justices will take their time.

“I don’t think we’ll see a decision right away because the Massachusetts justices know they’re writing for history” said Mattis’s attorney Ruth Greenberg.