Summary of Argument

Under well-established law, Massachusetts courts may not impose life-determinant sentences such as mandatory LWOP on adolescents who committed the charged offense any time before they turned 18. That prohibition arose from scientific findings that led courts to conclude that these adolescents are less culpable and more capable of rehabilitation. Prior to the superior court order below, however, state courts had to impose LWOP on late adolescents like Mr. Mattis and Mr. Robinson involved in the same offense on or after the day they turn 18.

Pursuant to hearings ordered by this Court, 12/24/21 Order in SJC-09265 and SJC-11693, the superior court heard extensive testimony from experts, reviewed scholarly publications, and issued core findings of fact. Superior Court Order, at 10-11, 15-18. These findings conclusively establish that late adolescents (individuals aged 18, 19, and 20) across the relevant metrics are fundamentally similar to those in earlier phases of adolescence and more dissimilar to those in early adulthood or adulthood. Thus, the superior court held that LWOP is no more justified for late adolescents than for younger adolescents.

In Commonwealth v. Watt, 484 Mass. 742, 755-56 (2020), this Court acknowledged that “the latest advances in scientific research on adolescent brain development and its impact on behavior” “likely” justify “revisit[ing] the boundary between defendants who are seventeen years old and thus shielded from the most severe sentence of [LWOP], and those who are eighteen years old and therefore exposed to it.” To date, mandatory LWOP for late adolescents has relied on the misconception that these still very young people are incorrigible and beyond reform for reentry into society. But as illustrated by the compelling expert testimony credited by the superior court, abundant, more recent neuroscientific evidence establishes that the brain, personality, and behavior evolve throughout the life span—including and especially in late adolescence—in ways that cannot be squared with those suppositions. Thus, as other state high courts, including Washington and Michigan, have recognized, drawing the line at 18 for when mandatory LWOP cannot be constitutionally imposed is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary and misplaced.

Consistent with the superior court’s core findings below, this Brief underscores the prevailing scientific consensus regarding brain development and behavior, which reveals profound changes throughout late adolescence. Because brain structure and function, as well as an individual’s behavior, personality, and propensity for risk-taking and danger are all profoundly in flux through late adolescence, there is no rational scientific basis for drawing a line at age 18 for when LWOP sentences may be constitutionally applied. Amici therefore submit that the contemporary scientific consensus furnishes ample grounds for this Court to “reach an informed conclusion [that] individuals in their late teens or early twenties should be given the same constitutional protections as juveniles for purposes of the Eighth Amendment and art. 26.” Com. v. Garcia, 482 Mass. 408, 413 (2019).

Summary of Argument

In Massachusetts, courts are prohibited from imposing life without parole (LWOP) sentences on individuals who committed offenses before the age of 18. This prohibition stems from scientific evidence demonstrating the diminished culpability and enhanced rehabilitative potential of adolescents. However, prior to a recent superior court order, LWOP remained mandatory for late adolescents (aged 18-20) involved in offenses committed on or after their 18th birthday.

Scientific Findings

Extensive expert testimony and scholarly publications presented to the superior court established that late adolescents exhibit fundamental similarities to younger adolescents in terms of brain development, personality, and behavior. These findings indicate that late adolescents are more akin to earlier phases of adolescence than to adulthood.

Legal Implications

The superior court concluded that LWOP sentences are no more appropriate for late adolescents than for younger adolescents. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court of Massachusetts' acknowledgment in Commonwealth v. Watt that scientific advancements in understanding adolescent brain development may warrant revisiting the age boundary for LWOP eligibility.

The misconception that late adolescents are irredeemable and incapable of societal reintegration has historically underpinned mandatory LWOP sentences for this age group. However, neuroscientific evidence contradicts this assumption, demonstrating ongoing brain, personality, and behavioral development throughout late adolescence.

Conclusion

Drawing an arbitrary line at age 18 for the imposition of LWOP sentences lacks a rational scientific basis. The prevailing scientific consensus on brain development and behavior supports extending the same constitutional protections afforded to juveniles to individuals in late adolescence. This would ensure that sentencing practices align with the evolving understanding of adolescent development and the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

Summary of Argument

Original Law:

In Massachusetts, courts cannot sentence adolescents who committed crimes before turning 18 to life without parole (LWOP). This is because scientific evidence shows that adolescents are less responsible for their actions and have a greater potential for rehabilitation. However, courts could sentence individuals who committed crimes on or after their 18th birthday to LWOP, even if they were still very young.

New Findings:

After extensive hearings, the superior court found that individuals aged 18-20 (late adolescents) are very similar to younger adolescents in terms of brain development, behavior, and potential for rehabilitation. Therefore, the court ruled that LWOP is not appropriate for late adolescents either.

Scientific Evidence:

The court's decision was based on recent scientific research on adolescent brain development. This research shows that the brain continues to develop and change significantly throughout late adolescence. These changes affect an individual's ability to control impulses, make decisions, and understand the consequences of their actions.

Conclusion:

Based on the scientific evidence, the court concluded that there is no logical reason to treat late adolescents differently from younger adolescents when it comes to LWOP sentences. The court's decision extends the same protections to individuals up to age 20, recognizing that they are still developing and have the potential for rehabilitation.

Summary of Argument

In Massachusetts, teenagers under 18 can't be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP). This is because science has shown that teenagers are still developing and have a better chance of changing their behavior.

However, teenagers who turn 18 on or after the day they commit a crime can still be sentenced to LWOP. This is unfair because science shows that even older teenagers (18-20) are still similar to younger teenagers in important ways.

Experts and studies have shown that the brains and behavior of late adolescents are still changing. They are more likely to take risks and make poor decisions than adults. This means that they should not be held as responsible for their actions as adults.

The law should be changed so that late adolescents are also protected from LWOP sentences. This would be fair and consistent with what science tells us about brain development.

Teenagers, even those who are 18 or older, deserve a chance to change and become productive members of society. Sentencing them to life in prison without parole is cruel and unusual punishment.

Summary of Argument

In Massachusetts, kids and teens who commit a crime before they turn 18 cannot be sentenced to life in prison without the chance of getting out. This is because scientists have found that kids' brains are still growing and changing, so they are not as responsible for their actions as adults.

But there was a problem. If someone did something wrong on or after their 18th birthday, they could be sentenced to life in prison without parole, even if they were only a few days older than someone who couldn't get that sentence.

The New Rule

Researchers went to court and showed that the brains of people who are 18, 19, and 20 years old are still very similar to the brains of younger teenagers. They also showed that these older teenagers are more like kids than adults in other ways too.

So, the court decided that it's not fair to sentence people who are 18, 19, or 20 years old to life in prison without parole. They said that these older teenagers deserve the same protection as younger teenagers because their brains are still developing, and they have a better chance of changing and becoming good citizens.