Brian Gutman, Campaign Coordinator

Phone: (617) 988-8374 Email: bgutman.mafsy@gmail.com

fb.com/FairSentence

twitter.com/FairSentence

View online at bit.ly/MAFairSentence

Contents Supporting Organizations

Click to navigate

About the Coalition Juvenile Life without Parole in Massachusetts ...an Opportunity for Review. Meaning of Miller Until They Die a Natural Death: Youth Sentenced to Life without Parole in Massachusetts (report) Recent Press
Political lines drawn on life sentences for teen killers (Los Angeles Times) Supreme Court says states may not impose mandatory life sentences on juvenile murderers (The Washington Post) Juveniles Dont Deserve Life Sentences (The New York Times) Resolve to reform juvenile law (Cape Cod Times) For teens guilty of murder, penalties can vary widely (The Boston Globe)

Contact Information

Supporting Organizations
A growing number of local, state and national organizations are calling for an end to life without parole sentences for juveniles, including:

Local & Statewide Supporters ACLU of Massachusetts Center for Public Representation Childrens Law Center of Massachusetts (CLCM) Childrens League of Massachusetts Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CfJJ) Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) Dorchester Youth Collaborative Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Louis D. Brown Peace Institute Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL) Massachusetts Association of Court Appointed Attorneys (MACAA) Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA) Massachusetts Office of the Child Advocate Massachusetts Psychological Association Massachusetts PTA Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC) National Association of Social Workers, Massachusetts (NASW) Parent / Professional Advocacy League (PPAL) Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts ROCA, Inc. Roxbury Youthworks, Inc. The Home for Little Wanderers (the Home) United Teen Equity Center (UTEC), Lowell

National Supporters American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) American Probation & Parole Association American Psychological Association Amnesty International Boy Scouts of America Center for Childrens Law and Policy Child Welfare League of America Childrens Defense Fund Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators Human Rights Watch Mothers Against Murderers Association NAACP NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund National Association of School Psychologists National Disabilities Rights Center National Juvenile Justice Network National PTA The Pendulum Foundation The Sentencing Project Southern Poverty Law Center The Real Cost of Prisons Project United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society United States Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association

fb.com/FairSentence

twitter.com/FairSentence

FairSentence@gmail.com

About the Coalition

Under the auspices of the Youth Advocacy Foundation, a 501(c)3 organization, the Massachusetts Coalition for Fair Sentencing of Youth (MCFSY) oversees three major program areas:

Litigation Support & Attorney Education We work with private and public defense attorneys involved in these cases to provide support, resources and training. Specifically, we maintain expert databases and provide written resources and training on adolescent brain development, the impact of youth exposure to violence and trauma, sentence mitigation proceedings, and key differences between how youth and adults respond to external pressures, include pressure from peers and family members. We also provide access to social workers and social service advocates and technical assistance for obtaining important records. Policy Education & Advocacy Our goal is to inform and educate policy makers so as to change state policy and statutes to improve sentencing outcomes for young people, by providing judges with either a range of age-appropriate sentencing options or by instituting paroleable sentences. By granting the possibility of parole, even in these tragic cases, we can ensure that the sentence of young offender is reviewed once that person has matured and had the opportunity to reform. We are also working to ensure that any policy solution include significantly increased access to programs for these young people, to provide them with the tools to truly grow and reform. Grassroots Mobilization - MCFSY coordinates the efforts of more than two dozen groups throughout the state, organizing, educating and mobilizing them into action. This coalition includes members of the mental health community, direct service providers, professional and legal associations, education-based groups, social justice organizations and the family members of homicide victims. As we continue to expand and diversify our coalition, we are emphasizing the need to engage groups throughout the commonwealth and from a wide range of backgrounds, experiences and communities served.

Our efforts to date have resulted in drafting and introducing legislation to abolish (retroactively and prospectively) LWOP sentences for all individuals who were under 18 at the time of their offense; winning support for legislative reform from the statewide Office of the Child Advocate, the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Massachusetts Psychological Association, the Children; League of Massachusetts, the Home for Little Wanderers and the Massachusetts Parent/Teacher Association (Mass. PTA), among other influential state organizations; supporting and convening a group of attorneys working on JLWOP cases to develop a strategic litigation agenda to challenge JLWOP sentencing; developing a press list and model Op Ed; and working to support national JLWOP abolition efforts through resource sharing and providing support for the state and national litigation list-serve/group.

Next Steps
Our work in 2013 and beyond is cut out for us, but we are excited at the potential it presents. Litigation Support/Attorney Education Thanks to the Miller decision, attorneys across the Commonwealth are working to bring the cases of those 65 persons who have been sentenced to life without parole back to the court for re-sentencing. More than half of of these 65 already having served over 15 years in prison (parole eligibility for a 2nd Degree offense), can have the opportunity to be given a second chance, and a few have served over 30 years. And we know that second chances work, as evidenced by David.

David was convicted of life without parole in juvenile court during a short time period in the early -mid 90s where a juvenile conviction resulted in parole eligibility after 15 years. While incarcerated, David took advantage of every school, work and counseling program available to him. He completed high school, took college credits and mentored other prisoners. After serving 15 years, the parole board unanimously granted David parole, as the intended goals of *Davids+ sentence and the criminal justice system have been met. *David+ from all accounts, has rehabilitated himself. Now 35, David works in mental health services and volunteers with the Department of Youth Services, speaking with youth in custody about his experiences, learning and growing while in custody, and the important steps that he took when reentering society to make sure that he stayed out of trouble and positively contributes to society. And the 18 children currently awaiting trial have the opportunity to receive and individualized sentencing hearing where the whole child is considered, instead of only one tragic act.

To ensure that these 65 persons receive the best possible re-trial, their attorneys need to be as prepared as possible and understand the intricacies of trying a juvenile. MCFSY will work with these attorneys to educate and support them during this process. Specifically, we: Provide access to experts, investigators, social workers and social service advocates, and other attorneys through databases and existing relationships; Coordinate an online collaboration network of in-state attorneys, social workers and experts who are actively working on these cases to share experiences and resources; Distribute written materials including academic articles on adolescent brain development, research into the impact of various circumstances (such as exposure to violence or trauma) on young people, and press compilations; and Offer trainings on key aspects of representation, such as access to critical, but difficult -to-find records and mitigation hearings.

Policy Education/Advocacy Again, thanks to the Miller decision, MCFSY and all those concerned with the treatment of children in our state, have the opportunity to change Massachusetts strict sentencing scheme. We can become a national role model that the other 28 jurisdictions in the US who also impose mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences can adopt. MCFSY is an active and vocal presence in Boston, meeting with legislators and their staff to educate them on the current, accidental, sentencing structure, the disconnect between policy and universally accepted science, the unusual harshness of the Massachusetts sentencing scheme and age appropriate sentencing options. Our goals are to: Educate legislators and their staffs on existing sentencing practices, science, national and international trends on juvenile sentencing, and provide legislators with reasonable and responsible solutions. Revise existing legislation and draft new legislation, following Miller for introduction to the state legislature during the upcoming legislative session; and Navigate legislation through the hearing process and pass it into law.

Grassroots Mobilization - Over the years YAF and MCFSY have built a diverse coalition committed to improving the lives of Massachusetts children. These include the Massachusetts PTA, organizations of victims family members, childs rights advocates (including the Childrens League of Massachusetts), juvenile justice advocates, former juvenile and federal judges, mental health professionals, and Criminologist James Alan Fox (who previously testified before Congress promoting the super -predator theory). Through partnerships with these diverse groups we are able to raise awareness, build good will and coordinate unified strategies for affecting policy change. MCFSY will continue and expand on this important community effort by: Reaching out to additional community organizations that do not typically work in juvenile criminal justice (unlikely allies) so that we can educate more people who are likely currently unaware of our existing policies; and Speak with various community and campus groups and organizations who are not members of the coalition to provide information and local context to Miller and youth sentencing in Massachusetts.

For more information on the work of the Massachusetts Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, please contact: Brian Gutman, by phone: (617) 988-8374 or by email: bgutman.mafsy@gmail.com

Juvenile Life without Parole in Massachusetts

ACLU of Massachusetts Center for Public Representation Childrens Law Center of Massachusetts (CLCM) Childrens League of Massachusetts Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CfJJ) Committee for Public Counsel Services Dorchester Youth Collaborative Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Louis D. Brown Peace Institute Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL) Massachusetts Association of Court Appointed Attorneys (MACAA) Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA) Massachusetts Psychological Association Massachusetts PTA Mass. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC) National Association of Social Workers, Massachusetts (NASW) Office of the Child Advocate Parent / Professional Advocacy League (PPAL) Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts ROCA, Inc. Roxbury Youthworks The Home for Little Wanderers United Teen Equity Center (UTEC), Lowell

More than 40% of youth sentenced to life without parole were first time offenders! Many cases also involve felony murder, meaning that the person convicted did not actually cause the victims death. In Massachusetts, Life without Parole is imposed on teens as young as 14. In Massachusetts, Life without Parole means that the juvenile will grow up, grow old, and die in prison. This sentencing policy is among the toughest in the United States and has been rejected by nearly every other country in the world. Juveniles sentenced to life in prison will serve twice as long as the average adult serving the same sentence. The part of the brain that regulates impulse control and emotional response (the prefrontal cortex) develops until the mid twenties. As a result, teens cannot weigh short term risks and long term consequences in the same way that adults do, and research shows that imposing adult sentences on juveniles does not deter youth crime. Youth are uniquely capable of rehabilitation and change because they are still cognitively developing. The vast majority of youth mature out of at-risk behaviors as they grow up even those who have committed serious offenses. The Supreme Court has recognized that because of this, adolescents are less culpable than adults. As a result of Massachusetts illegal, mandatory life-without-parole sentencing scheme for youth as young as 14, there are 64 people serving an unconstitutional sentence. This is 6 times more than all other states in the Northeast combined! It will cost taxpayers well over $140 million to the people currently serving this sentence, over the course of their lives.

fb.com/FairSentence twitter.com/FairSentence FairSentence@gmail.com

Everyone agrees that teens must be held accountable for their actions, but sentencing practices should also take into account teenagers unique capacity for change and growth.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Corrections Reporting Program, 1997: *United States+ ,Computer file-. Conducted by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter -university Consortium for Political and Social Research *producer and distributor+, 2000 AND U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ (2010).

...an opportunity for review.

ACLU of Massachusetts Center for Public Representation Childrens Law Center of Massachusetts (CLCM) Childrens League of Massachusetts Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CfJJ) Committee for Public Counsel Services Dorchester Youth Collaborative Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Louis D. Brown Peace Institute Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL) Massachusetts Association of Court Appointed Attorneys (MACAA) Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA) Massachusetts Psychological Association Massachusetts PTA Mass. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC) National Association of Social Workers, Massachusetts (NASW) Office of the Child Advocate Parent / Professional Advocacy League (PPAL) Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts ROCA, Inc. Roxbury Youthworks The Home for Little Wanderers United Teen Equity Center (UTEC), Lowell

Adolescence is a time of rapid change and development. Most teens age out of adolescent mis-behavior and as a result, the majority of teens involved in the criminal justice system are not involved in the criminal justice system as adults. Youth are intellectually immature. They tend to be impulsive, susceptible to peer pressure and sensation-seeking. In high-pressure, heat of the moment situations, this immaturity can easily undermine their decision-making capacity. Serious youth offenders are not all the same. Treating all offenders the same misses an opportunity to help them grow and change, and when appropriate, to have an opportunity to rejoin and positively contribute to society. It is impossible to determine if a teenager will be a threat to society the rest of their life. Instead of telling a child that they are unsalvageable, we should implement an age-appropriate alternative that provides the possibility of parole after evaluating whether that person remains a threat to public safety as an adult. Tools to assess the maturity of a person on an individual basis are not well developed. By providing the possibility of parole for young offenders, once they are fully developed, we create the opportunity to assess whether it is appropriate to release a grown adult who has served a long prison sentence, rather than trying to pass final judgment on an immature child. Instead of leading the world on appropriate and effective youth justice, the United States stands only with Somalia and South Sudan in sentencing kids to a lifetime in prison without the possibility of parole. While states like Texas have abolished the practice, Massachusetts remains an outlier, with the harshest Juvenile Life without Parole laws in the country and in the world.

fb.com/FairSentence twitter.com/FairSentence FairSentence@gmail.com

The Meaning of Miller

...mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eight Amendments prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. - Miller v. Alabama (2012)
Miller is the most recent decision in a line of cases, recognizing that age is more than chronological fact. In 2002, the Supreme Court banned the use of the death penalty for people with mental illnesses ( Atkins v. Virginia). This prohibition against executing people with lesser culpability was extended to juveniles in 2005 (Roper v. Simmons). In 2010, the court prohibited life without parole sentences for adolescents convicted of non -homicide offenses (Graham v. Florida) and in 2011, recognized that the differences between kids and adults places youth at a significant disadvantage in criminal proceedings (J.D.B. v. North Carolina). Finally, in June 2012, the court concluded that because of these differences, age must be considered in sentencing and prohibited mandatory life without parole for any juvenile. Children are fundamentally different from adults . They are immature, more likely to give into peer pressure, less likely to fully appreciate risks and consequences, and are profoundly influenced by their environment; an environment which they have little control over. Individualized sentencing requires a judge to consider the age of the juvenile and its hallmark features; the family and home environment, circumstances of the offense including familiar and peer pressures, the incompetencies and incapacities associated with youth that impact the juveniles ability to deal with police, prosecutors and assist in his defense, and the possibility of rehabilitation.
fb.com/FairSentence twitter.com/FairSentence FairSentence@gmail.com

ACLU of Massachusetts Center for Public Representation Childrens Law Center of Massachusetts (CLCM) Childrens League of Massachusetts Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CfJJ) Committee for Public Counsel Services Dorchester Youth Collaborative Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Louis D. Brown Peace Institute Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL) Massachusetts Association of Court Appointed Attorneys (MACAA) Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA) Massachusetts Psychological Association Massachusetts PTA Mass. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC) National Association of Social Workers, Massachusetts (NASW) Office of the Child Advocate Parent / Professional Advocacy League (PPAL) Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts ROCA, Inc. Roxbury Youthworks The Home for Little Wanderers United Teen Equity Center (UTEC), Lowell

Discretion at sentencing helps ensure that a 14 year-old lookout is not treated the same as a 17 year-old triggerman, and that neither are treated as 50 year-old criminal masterminds.

Report
View and download the full text of the 2009 report by the Childrens Law Center of Massachusetts; Until They Die A Natural Death: Youth Sentenced to Life Without Parole in Massachusetts

Click to navigate

To access the report, visit: bit.ly/FairSentence or scan the QR Code with your mobile device.

PolitiCal ON POLITICS IN THE GOLDEN STATE

Political lines drawn on life sentences for teen killers

By Paige St.John September 21, 2012 Political pressure on Gov. Jerry Brown to make a decision on California's sentencing laws for teen killers is mounting. Brown has until the end of the month to sign or veto SB 9, Sen. Leland Yee's bill to allow the possibility of parole after 25 years for juveniles currently sentenced to life without parole. Most if not all of the cases involve murder, but those serving the sentence include both killers and accomplices. The bill excludes those who torture their victims or kill law enforcement officers and requires those seeking parole to have had no serious violations for five years. Support for the bill comes from both sides of the aisle. Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi and former Republican House leader Newt Gingrich urge Brown to sign the bill. In an editorial appearing Thursday in the San Diego U-T, Gingrich called California's life without parole sentences an "overuse of incarceration. It denies the reality that young people often change for the better." In a letter to the governor, Pelosi contended that "civilized societies are increasingly prohibiting life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, recognizing that juveniles do not possess the same mental development as adults. Brown is hearing plenty from the other side as well. California Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway earlier this month sent the governor a letter seeking veto of the "unnecessary" bill. "California already has a carefully balanced statutory scheme that appropriately balances the need to hold the most serious juvenile murderers accountable for their crimes, while recognizing different levels of maturity and culpability based on the age of the offender, and
Political lines drawn on life sentences for teen killers - Los Angeles Times

retains judicial discretion," she wrote. Indeed, some victim advocates contend that because judges already rejected the possibility of allowing eventual parole for the state's 309 inmates sentenced as minors, there is no reason to revisit the issue. They have political support from lobbyists for prison guards and prosecutors. The battle lines are not universally inclusive. Mothers Against Murder, for instance, has refused to take an official stance on the bill even though its membership includes families of those killed by juveniles. "We tend not to take a stand due to our respect for different families' wishes," said Executive Director Margaret Petros. "You would be surprised how many mothers want to forgive the criminals to make peace and deal with the tremendous pain they go through. It is different for some, though, who want to see the case go to death row," Petros said. "Sometimes, different family members feel differently. My work and MAM's philosophy is to unconditionally accept/ respect all the different wishes of family members."

Supreme Court says states may not impose mandatory life sentences on juvenile murderers
By Robert Barnes June 25, 2012 A divided Supreme Court on Monday said states may not impose on juvenile murderers mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole. The 5 to 4 ruling said such mandatory sentences offend the constitutions prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and follow a trend at the court of treating even the worst juvenile offenders differently from adults. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, said the decision was consistent with the courts past findings that children lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility; that they are more vulnerable to outside pressure and that their character is less formed and more open to rehabilitation. Our decisions rested not only on common sense on what any parent knows but on science and social science as well, Kagan wrote, adding the mandatory penalty schemes at issue here prevent the sentencer from taking account of these central considerations. The decision said judges may still sentence juveniles convicted of murder to a life sentence without possibility of parole, but must take into consideration mitigating circumstances. The opinion was joined by Kagans fellow liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, as well as by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who most often sides with conservatives but has authored the courts previous opinions about juvenile offenders. It drew sharp rebukes from the courts conservatives, including Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who said from the bench that the ruling represented an elite vision from the court that it knows better than the states, 29 of whom authorize mandatory sentences for juvenile murders. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a dissent joined by Alito and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, elaborated. Determining the appropriate sentence for a teenager convicted of murder presents grave and challenging questions of morality and social policy, Roberts wrote. Our role, however, is to apply the law, not to answer such questions. He said mandatory life sentences could not plausibly be described as unusual when a majority of states endorse them. In 2005, the court banned the death penalty for juveniles who kill, saying the punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person. In 2010, the court continued the trend by saying juveniles whose crimes did not include murder could not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole at some point. Kennedy wrote both opinions for the divided court. The cases at the court were brought by lawyers for the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Ala., which had asked the court to ban life sentences for juveniles 15 and younger when they committed their crimes.

Supreme Court says states may not impose mandatory life sentences on juvenile murderers - The Washington Post

Kagan said the ruling does not address that issue; she expected such cases would be rare when judges were free to take a juveniles age into account at sentencing. The court took a significant step forward by recognizing the fundamental unfairness of mandatory death-in-prison sentences that dont allow sentencers to consider the unique status of children and their potential for change, said EJIs Bryan Stevenson. The court has recognized that children need additional attention and protection in the criminal justice system. There are 2,300 inmates serving life-without-parole sentences for murders committed before they were 18. But only 79 nationwide were 14 or younger at the time of their crimes, and about 90 percent of those are serving mandatory sentences. The cases before the justices came from two 14-yearolds who were sentenced to life without parole for their roles in separate killings. Evan Miller, a victim of abuse so severe that, his lawyer said, he had tried to kill himself five times, was convicted along with another juvenile of killing a neighbor, 52-year-old Cole Cannon, and setting afire Cannons trailer in Lawrence County, Ala. Kuntrell Jackson of Blytheville, Ark., was with two other youths who attempted to rob a video store. One of the others used a sawed-off shotgun to kill 28-year -old clerk Laurie Troup. The two cases are Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.

Supreme Court says states may not impose mandatory life sentences on juvenile murderers - The Washington Post

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Juveniles Dont Deserve Life Sentences

By Gail Garinger March 15, 2012 Boston IN the late 1980s, a small but influential group of criminologists predicted a coming wave of violent juvenile crime: superpredators, as young as 11, committing crimes in wolf packs. Politicians soon responded to those fears, and to concerns about the perceived inadequacies of state juvenile justice systems, by lowering the age at which children could be transferred to adult courts. The concern was that offenders prosecuted as juveniles would have to be released at age 18 or 21. At the same time, tough on crime rhetoric led some states to enact laws making it easier to impose life without parole sentences on adults. The unintended consequence of these laws was that children as young as 13 and 14 who were charged as adults became subject to life without parole sentences. Nationwide, 79 young adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison a sentence not imposed on children anywhere else in the world. These children were told that they could never change and that no one cared what became of them. They were denied access to education and rehabilitation programs and left without help or hope. But the prediction of a generation of superpredators never came to pass. Beginning in the mid-1990s, violent juvenile crime declined, and it has continued to decline through the present day. The laws that were passed to deal with them, however, continue to exist. This month, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases, Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, which will decide whether children can be sentenced to life without parole after being convicted of homicide.
Juveniles Dont Deserve Life Sentences - The New York Times

The court has already struck down the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young offenders convicted in nonhomicide cases. The rationale for these earlier decisions is simple and equally applicable to the cases to be heard: Young people are biologically different from adults. Brain imaging studies reveal that the regions of the adolescent brain responsible for controlling thoughts, actions and emotions are not fully developed. They cannot be held to the same standards when they commit terrible wrongs. Homicide is the worst crime, but in striking down the juvenile death penalty in 2005, the Supreme Court recognized that even in the most serious murder cases, juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders: they are less mature, more vulnerable to peer pressure, cannot escape from dangerous environments, and their characters are still in formation. And because they remain unformed, it is impossible to assume that they will always present an unacceptable risk to public safety. The most disturbing part of the superpredator myth is that it presupposed that certain children were hopelessly defective, perhaps genetically so. Today, few believe that criminal genes are inherited, except in the sense that parental abuse and negative home lives can leave children with little hope and limited choices. As a former juvenile court judge, I have seen firsthand the enormous capacity of children to change and turn themselves around. The same malleability that makes them vulnerable to peer pressure also makes them promising candidates for rehabilitation.

An overwhelming majority of young offenders grow out of crime. But it is impossible at the time of sentencing for mental health professionals to predict which youngsters will fall within that majority and grow up to be productive, law-abiding citizens and which will fall into the small minority that continue to commit crimes. For this reason, the court has previously recognized that children should not be condemned to die in prison without being given a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. The criminologists who promoted the superpredator theory have acknowledged that their prediction never came to pass, repudiated the theory and expressed regret. They have joined several dozen other criminologists in an amicus brief to the court asking it to strike down life without parole sentences for children convicted of murder. I urge the justices to apply the logic and the wisdom of their earlier decisions and affirm that the best time to decide whether someone should spend his entire life in prison is when he has grown to be an adult, not when he is still a child.
Gail Grainger, a juvenile court judge in Massachusetts from 1995 to 2008, is the states child advocate, appointed by the governor.

Juveniles Dont Deserve Life Sentences - The New York Times

Resolve to reform juvenile law

By James Alan Fox January 10, 2012 An editorial in the Times ("Juvenile Justice," Jan. 4) highlighted the dramatic downward trend of juvenile crime. With crime rates at a 50-year low, this is a good time to re-examine our criminal justice policies, especially those measures implemented in a knee-jerk fashion when crime rates and fears were peaking. We should begin in the areas that are a significant drain on the budget, such as our over-reliance on lengthy prison terms for juvenile murderers who, after decades of incarceration, no longer pose a danger to society. And this is hardly a left-wing, softon-crime idea, as even conservatives like Newt Gingrich have argued that we can't afford to continue pouring vast sums of tax dollars into prison systems. Many people are surprised to learn that Massachusetts is one of the toughest places in the world in punishing juvenile murderers. Defendants as young as 14, who are charged with murder, are automatically tried as adults. If convicted, they are automatically sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. No other state has this harsh and rigid combination, and several states, including ultra-conservative Texas, have recently abolished life without parole sentences for juveniles. Punishment should fit the crime, but it should also fit the criminal. The worn-out slogan, "adult time for adult crime," fails to recognize critical differences between juveniles and adults. While teens may look and act like adults, they lack impulse control and the ability to weigh fully all the risks to their behavior. Although knowing that killing is wrong, they do not appreciate the immense consequences for themselves, much less for their victims. Adolescents are also more apt to follow along down the wrong path for the sole purpose of gaining peer approval, no matter how harmful the outcome. Even the penalty of life without parole is no greater a deterrent to juveniles than a lengthy prison sentence, such as 15 or more years. For many teenagers, 15 years seems like a lifetime. I have closely studied juvenile murder trends in Massachusetts and elsewhere across the county. Regardless of the juvenile sentencing policies in a state, murder by juveniles is down significantly. In fact, by the time we passed our draconian sentencing laws, the juvenile murder rate was already on a downward trajectory. Pending state legislation (H.1346/S.672), would allow juveniles sentenced to life in prison to be eligible for parole after serving 15 years. Of course, any bid for parole could and should be denied if the offender failed to demonstrate significant change in attitude and behavior. Hardly a slap on the wrist, this is the same sentence currently imposed on adults convicted of second-degree murder and the plea deal offered by prosecutors to nearly half of the juveniles currently serving life without the possibility of parole. Murder is tragic regardless of the age of the assailant. No matter how young the offender, a victim has lost his or her life, a family has lost a loved one and a community is forever changed. While such crimes are egregious, sentencing a young person to grow up, grow old and die behind bars without ever having a second chance deprives another family of its child, another community of its neighbor, and does so without making us any safer. Our laws should prescribe severe penalties to the worst offenders, but be flexible enough to respond more moderately to

Resolve to reform juvenile law - Cape Cod Times

cases involving young offenders, especially firsttimers, or instances involving substantial mitigating circumstances. The change in calendar is a time not just for looking backward, but also for making changes for the future. Let's make juvenile law reform in Massachusetts a New Year's resolution for the better.
James Alan Fox is the Lipman Family professor of criminology, law and public policy at Northeastern University.

Resolve to reform juvenile law - Cape Cod Times

For teens guilty of murder, penalties can vary widely

By Sarah Favot, Kirsten Berg and Jenna Ebersole New England Center for Investigative Reporting December 27, 2011 The two cases illustrate the profound inequities that have grown up in the juvenile justice system since passage of a 1996 law aimed at cracking down on juvenile super predators by requiring them to be tried in adult court, an investigation by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting has found. Before the change, teenage murder defendants were sometimes tried in juvenile court, where, if convicted, they could be sentenced to serve only until age 21. Now such teenagers as young as 14 can be sentenced to life without parole.
Antonio Fernandez is serving life without parole for a slaying he committed when he was a teenager.

One 16-year-old went looking for marijuana at a Brookline High School graduation party and shot the guest of honor in the chest when he got a racial slur instead. The other 16-year-old stabbed a man 23 times inside his Springfield apartment, returning the next day to steal things from the victims home as his body lay nearby. Both crimes were horrific, but the punishments were strikingly different. The teen convicted in Springfield, Edgardo Rodriguez, accepted a plea deal for the 2004 killing of Joel Rivera Delgado that allows him to potentially walk free within the next decade. The other teen, Antonio Fernandez, took his 2002 Brookline case to trial and lost, receiving the harshest juvenile sentence Massachusetts permits the harshest in the country, in fact - for shooting Perry Hughes: life in prison without the possibility of parole. Until then, Fernandez had never been charged with anything worse than stealing video games. Now, he is sentenced to remain in prison until he dies.

Seven Massachusetts youths have received the maximum penalty for slayings they committed before they turned 17. But in only two cases - a fatal beating with hammers and the stabbing of a stranger in a school restroom - did their crimes approach the cruelty of the Somerville teen who inspired the law, Eddie OBrien. He stabbed his best friends mother 97 times in 1995, continuing to slash her long after she had suffered mortal wounds. Four of the teenage lifers acted impulsively, settling petty disputes with lethal attacks, the review of murder cases shows. Fernandez, for instance, had pedaled his bicycle to the graduation party and later snapped when guests turned hostile, witnesses said. Only two of the seven lifers had a record of violent crime, the investigation found, and two had no criminal history at all. Meanwhile, more than 60 other teens charged with murder since 1996 have escaped the maximum sentence, court records show, often pleading guilty to a lesser crime such as second-degree murder, making them eligible for parole. Yet, many of these youths

For teens guilty of murder, penalties can vary widely - The Boston Globe

committed shocking, grisly crimes; one convicted of beating a 2-year-old to death.

was

system, where teens facing murder charges could be tried in juvenile court, where punishments tend to be much lighter. Thomas F. Reilly, a former attorney general who prosecuted OBrien when he was Middlesex district attorney, still strongly supports the law, saying it has improved public safety. An adult trial for murder defendants over age 14 is a perfectly appropriate way of dealing with truly heinous situations, Reilly said. Some victims families argue that, if anything, the super predator law does not go far enough. If it was my decision, wed have the death penalty, said Olivia Singletary, the adoptive mother of Fernandezs victim. But critics of the law say that recent scientific studies demonstrate that it is inappropriate to treat adolescents like adults in murder cases. Brain imaging research indicates that adolescent brains are underdeveloped in areas associated with risk assessment and moral reasoning, making them more prone than adults to impulsive responses. State Senator Harriett Chandler, a Worcester Democrat who voted for the 1996 law, said the science convinced her that life without parole is too harsh a punishment for people whose brains are still developing. She introduced legislation in September to allow juveniles sentenced to life without parole to apply for parole after 15 years. Ive had second thoughts, Chandler said. Some judges who have presided over juvenile murder cases also have expressed discomfort with the maximum sentence. I dont know what the answer is. But I dont think we do justice by sentencing someone 16 and under to life without parole, no matter what the circumstances, said Isaac Borenstein, the retired Superior Court judge who had presided over the Fernandez trial.

A review of these cases found no obvious pattern to explain why some killers got life without parole and others got lesser sentences. What is clear, however, is that the law has not been applied consistently to the most grievous murder cases. Juveniles whose crimes approach the cruelty of OBriens have escaped the harsh sentence, while spontaneous acts of violence by teenagers with little prior record are punished with life behind bars. Wed like to reserve the maximum penalty for the worst cases, for the most dangerous individuals, said James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist and a critic of the current system. The seven teens who got life without parole do not appear to be the worst cases. MASSACHUSETTS is the only state in New England to impose life without parole on juveniles in the past 15 years. Nationally, at least six states have abolished similar laws, making Massachusetts a target of criticism even from law-and-order Texas, where legislators recently repealed life without parole for juveniles. The Bay State is meting out unequal justice to teenagers, declared Texas state Senator Juan Chuy Hinojosa, who led the fight to make juvenile killers eligible for parole after they serve 40 years of their sentence. No prosecutors from the Massachusetts counties where teens have been sentenced to life without parole - Middlesex, Suffolk, Essex, and Norfolk would comment on their cases for the record. But the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association released a statement supporting the law, arguing that teens who commit heinous crimes should not get leniency and mercy that they never showed their victims. Prosecutors credit the law with forcing brutal juvenile killers into adult court, unlike the old

For teens guilty of murder, penalties can vary widely - The Boston Globe

Some jurors say they are haunted by the severity of the sentence imposed on teenage murderers. Carletta White, forewoman of the jury that voted to convict 16-year-old Kentel Weaver of first-degree murder in the 2003 shooting of 15-year-old Germaine Rucker, said she had no idea that Weaver could wind up with such a harsh sentence. I didnt think he was going to get life, she said. Sitting in an austere prison conference room, sporting tightly woven dreadlocks and a drab jumpsuit, Fernandez, now 26, recalled his icy shock, his knees nearly buckling under the courtroom table, as the jury announced its verdict against him. But not until he actually spent time in an adult prison, he said, after turning 17, did he really understand the price he was going to pay for shooting Hughes. Thats when it hit me, he said. The rest of my life means Im going to die here. Though his lawyer prevented him from answering questions about the murder in an interview, Fernandez expressed remorse in a 2008 letter he filed in Norfolk Superior Court in an attempt to reduce his sentence. Back then, I was a child lost in his own world and confused. But now Ive matured into manhood and know whats wrong and whats right, Fernandez wrote. I know I have taken a life. That is a change from the days after Fernandez shot Hughes: First, he fled to New York City, then he tried to blame a friend for firing the fatal shot. Prosecutors offered to let him plead guilty to second-degree murder, which would have given him a chance at freedom in 15 years or less, but Fernandez wanted to see if he could convince a jury of his innocence. Like other teens who have received life without parole, Fernandez grew up in difficult circumstances. Born to a 15-year-old mother, Fernandez was a week old when she decided she couldnt care for him. She gave the boy to her mother, who was abusive and had been hospitalized in an inpatient psychiatric unit, according to an affidavit Fernandezs mother

filed in his case. Now, Fernandez hopes the change in state law proposed by Chandler, which would apply to current and future lifers, might give him a chance to rebuild the life he shattered at 16, perhaps embark on a music career and connect with his younger siblings. Like Fernandez, Kevin Keo rejected a plea bargain that would have made him eligible for parole in 15 to 16 years for the 2007 shooting death of Christian Vargas-Martinez, a gang rival he blamed for slicing off part of his ear a few weeks earlier. Keo, then 16 and with no criminal record, insisted he was innocent right up to the moment he was sentenced to life without parole. He was just a baby a few years ago, and now his life is done, said Keos father, Vong Oung, who regrets that he didnt press his son to accept the plea deal. Parents of some teenage lifers said they made foolish decisions because they had no understanding of the judicial system. Kentel Weaver said he confessed to murdering Rucker mainly because his mother mistakenly insisted that was the only way he could get a lawyer. ANOTHER LIFER had to make life-determining legal decisions almost entirely on his own. Noeun Sok, a 15-year-old Cambodian immigrant, was accompanied only by his sister when he turned himself in to police in 1999: He immediately waived his right to remain silent and confessed to fatally stabbing a gang rival earlier that day. At his friends urging, Sok admitted that he chased Keoudone Tiny Onexavieng, 18, and put a 30-inch Samurai sword in his back. I never meant to hurt Tiny. I only wanted to scare him, Sok told police. Soks parents didnt attend his trial, so when he began sobbing uncontrollably, the judge ordered an additional lawyer to act as his guardian.

For teens guilty of murder, penalties can vary widely - The Boston Globe

Meanwhile, other teenage murderers who had lengthier, more violent criminal records than Sok, Keo, and Fernandez have avoided life without parole. Michael Shawn Warners juvenile record included multiple counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon by the time he was tried for shooting John Rodrigues twice from behind during a drug dispute. He fled the scene of the 2000 shooting on his scooter and evaded arrest for nearly three years. But Suffolk County juries could not reach a verdict after two trials, and prosecutors instead offered him a deal to plead guilty to manslaughter. Sentenced to 12 to 14 years in prison, Warner is eligible for release between 2020 and 2024. Likewise, Billeoum Phan of Lowell, 14, had already faced charges in numerous violent attacks before he shot Samnath Oth, a feared gang member, during a 2006 birthday party in Lowell. Yet, he was convicted of manslaughter - not first-degree murder - and the judge pronounced him salvageable, sentencing him to the Department of Youth Services until he turns 21. After that, he will have to serve five years of probation and a 12-year suspended sentence, but he will be free. AMONG murder defendants suffering mental illness, the sentencing is just as varied, with one getting life without parole while another served fewer than 10 years for seemingly similar crimes. Valerie Hall, a Shrewsbury teenager, pushed her mother, Kathleen A. Thomsen Hall, down a flight of stairs in 2000, then struck her head twice with a hammer, leaving her to die while she went for a ride with her boyfriend. Prosecutors say Hall was angry that her mother grounded her after the daughter stayed out late. But the Worcester County district attorney agreed to let her plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a dangerous weapon instead of firstdegree murder, acknowledging that the girl was being treated for depression and had attempted

suicide a few weeks before the murder. Hall was paroled to a halfway house in 2009. By contrast, John Odgren, now 21, is serving life without parole at Bridgewater State Hospital for the 2007 murder of 15-year-old James Alenson, a boy he did not even know. Odgren, a special-needs student who attended Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High, hid in the schools boys room and surprised Alenson, stabbing him multiple times. Odgrens lawyers argued their client had lost touch with reality following a lifetime of bullying and harassment from other youths, but a Middlesex County jury rejected his defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. Superior Court Judge S. Jane Haggerty declined to reduce Odgrens sentence, but she expressed sympathy, writing, There is tragedy in a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of a parole for a 16-year-old offender in the circumstances of the defendant. Paul Odgren, father of John Odgren, said it is time to realize that murder cases are not always clear-cut and that teenagers convicted of first-degree murder should at least have a chance at parole. He realizes that his child should never again be left unsupervised, but his son has no hope that he will ever get out of prison. The only thing that is worse than what happened to us is what happened to them, said Odgren, referring to Alenson and his parents. Kids are not adults. Its reflected in all our other laws. They cant drive. They cant vote. They cant get married. They cant join the military. Why should they never, ever have a chance to rehabilitate themselves? Odgren asked.
The New England Center for Investigative Reporting at Boston University is a nonprofit investigative reporting newsroom. Maggie Mulvihill, the centers co -director, supervised this project. Other contributors were Rochelle Sharp and NECIR interns Jill Carlson, Susan Zalkind, Carol Cole, and Alexandria Burris.
Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story inaccurately characterized Antonio Fernandezs relationship with his grandmother. Fernandezs mother accused the grandmother of child abuse in a court affidavit.

For teens guilty of murder, penalties can vary widely - The Boston Globe

View online at bit.ly/MAFairSentence

Brian Gutman, Campaign Coordinator

Phone: (617) 988-8374 Email: bgutman.mafsy@gmail.com

fb.com/FairSentence

twitter.com/FairSentence