Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Readers aren’t happy with SJC ruling on life without parole for adults under 21
"They should also accept adult responsibilities for adult crimes."
Massachusetts’ highest court delivered prison reform advocates a win last month when it ruled against life sentences without the possibility of parole for adults under 21, becoming the first in the nation to do so.
The decision was made based on a combination of scientific and legal evidence that show “the brains of emerging adults are not fully mature,” according to the justices.
“Upholding such sentences means that we disregard the best science and continue to impose the most severe penalty on a distinct legal category of individuals that we know are less culpable and more capable of change,” Justice Scott Kafker wrote in a concurring opinion.
Advertisement:
Boston.com readers, however, are against the recent ruling. Of the 333 readers who responded to a recent opinion survey, 77% said that adults under 21 should still qualify for life sentences, if their crime is serious enough to warrant it.
“A decision like this makes sense for those under 18 as too many 14 and 15 year old’s are tried as adults. But someone over 18 is old enough to understand adult responsibilities. They can vote, serve in the military, and wed. They should also accept adult responsibilities for adult crimes,” said Neil R. from South Boston.
Do you agree with the high court's ruling that adults under 21 can't be sentenced to life without parole?
Yes
23%
No
77%
The court’s decision allows Sheldon Mattis, the defendant at the center of the case, a shot at resentencing. At age 18, Mattis was convicted of murder in the shooting death of Jaivon Blake in 2011 and sentenced to life without parole. His co-defendant, who was 17 at the time, was sentenced to 15 years.
Advertisement:
Last month’s ruling also gives about 70 people serving life sentences the chance for parole, according to the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office.
Below readers shared their thoughts on the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling and how they feel it’ll impact the state’s criminal justice system.
Some entries have been edited for length or clarity.
Do you agree with the high court’s ruling that adults under 21 can’t be sentenced to life without parole?
No
“At 18 you can vote and join the army, but you cannot take responsibility for killing someone? Why should someone you killed see his/her life ended while you spend 15 years in jail and walk free?” — Mike, Brookline
“If an 18-year-old makes the decision to kill someone then they’re mentally capable of accepting the consequences of life in prison.” — Ted
“Kids under 21 know what they are doing when they murder someone. Also, given a lot are possibly gang-related, why should they ever get out? Lastly, judges have discretion so where it’s not appropriate they can sentence to life with possibility of parole. It’s not like Mass. is appointing ‘hang ‘em high’ type judges.” — Stan, Jamaica Plain
“If you are a legal adult that can vote, serve in the military, enter into binding contracts and consent to sex, then you are old enough to take full responsibility for your actions. Plenty of 18 to 20 year olds don’t kill people.” — Mike D., South Boston
Advertisement:
“Since Massachusetts does not have the death penalty, life without parole seems appropriate for premeditated murder.” — Paul F., Cohasset
“There is a reason that 18-year-olds are treated as adults in various services. Why shouldn’t it be for serious criminal crimes committed? In many states, 16- and 17-year-olds are treated as adults for heinous crimes. Our laws are based on deterrence but now Massachusetts is becoming a haven for the would-be criminals.” — Prakash P., Westford
“Why do we continue to protect criminals? If the crime is horrific enough to warrant life without parole, the appropriate sentence should be applied.” — Chris, North Andover
Yes
“I agree with the court’s ruling. Extensive research has been done on this subject, which formed the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles are unconstitutional.” — Elizabeth, North Shore
“I believe, in some cases, prisoners can be rehabilitated. I also object to the high cost to house and take care of prisoners for life.” — Michael L., Mansfield
“The prefrontal cortex does not complete its development until we’re about 25. It seems inhumane to me to condemn someone to life in prison for something they did when their brain hasn’t developed fully. In addition, it seems far more humane, far more consistent with Christian values, to give someone a shot at redemption when they’ve made a mistake.” — Warfield H., Keene, N.H.
Advertisement:
“At 19 or 20, someone isn’t a child and is expected to behave as an adult. But not completely a responsible adult since other laws, [like] liquor laws, recognize this. Criminal justice should too. Allow the opportunity for parole. If there’s an actual chance at rehabilitation, rather than only punishment, that’s significant and we should take it. And also support it with transitional programming to steer people into lives away from all the things in their former life that led them to be an offender in the first place or that encourage recidivist tendencies.” — Dee, Somerville
“I agree because people under a certain age do not usually have enough reasoning capacity to judge well the consequences of their actions. Twenty-one is generally considered the age of maturity for most things. They need help and guidance more than unforgiving punishment.” — Jane, Woburn
Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.
Be civil. Be kind.
Read our full community guidelines.To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address