Summary of Argument

This Court asks whether article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights categorically bars mandatory life-without-parole sentences for individuals age 18 to 20 convicted of first-degree murder. The narrow answer is yes, but amici posit that this Court should hold that life-without-parole sentences for all late adolescents—including those over age 20—are unconstitutional, and extend its ruling in Diatchenko v. Dist. Att’y, 466 Mass. 655 (2013) (Diatchenko I), accordingly.

(pp. 7-15) First, this Court’s decision in Diatchenko I, consistent with other rulings addressing article 26, extended the reach of rights previously recognized under the Eighth Amendment rights. But here, where the U.S. Supreme Court drew a clear line at age 18 for sentencing protections based on outdated notions of the age of maturity, this Court must consider article 26 independently from the Eighth Amendment. In doing so, this Court should decisively rule that article 26 is substantively broader than the Eighth Amendment. Article 26, unlike the Eighth Amendment, requires sentences that are proportional to both the offense and the person facing punishment. Additionally, article 26’s prohibition against cruel “or” unusual punishment is textually broader than the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel “and” unusual punishment. Accordingly, all sentences should be reviewed for proportionality considering society’s evolving standards of decency.

(pp. 15-31) Second, objective measures of society’s standards of decency show that life-without-parole sentences are disproportionate for youth over 18 for the same reasons they are disproportionate for youth under 18. Scientific research shows that the developmental characteristics of youth that render them less blameworthy, which this Court relied upon in barring life without parole for juveniles, extend to older adolescents well beyond age 18. A clear national consensus also is emerging—based on this research—that the line between childhood and adulthood falls well above the age of 18.

(pp. 31-33) Third, states with similar prohibitions on disproportionate punishment are beginning to address the scientific reality that life sentences for late adolescents are unconstitutionally cruel or unusual punishment. Because the justifications for life-without-parole sentences for older adolescents fail in the same way they fail for youth under 18, and neither science nor society considers 18 to be the age at which a child achieves full maturity, this Court should broaden its ruling in Diatchenko I to hold that article 26 bars life-without-parole sentences for youth over 18.

Summary of Argument

This article examines whether Article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights prohibits mandatory life-without-parole sentences for individuals aged 18 to 20 convicted of first-degree murder. The authors argue that Article 26 should be interpreted to bar such sentences for all late adolescents, including those over age 20.

The authors note that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has previously extended the protections of the Eighth Amendment to Article 26. However, they argue that Article 26 is broader than the Eighth Amendment in two key respects:

• Article 26 requires sentences to be proportional to both the offense and the offender.

• Article 26 prohibits cruel "or" unusual punishment, while the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel "and" unusual punishment.

The authors contend that societal standards of decency have evolved to recognize that life-without-parole sentences are disproportionate for late adolescents. They cite scientific research showing that the developmental characteristics that mitigate culpability in juveniles extend to older adolescents. They also note a growing national consensus that the age of maturity extends beyond 18.

The authors point out that other states with constitutional prohibitions on disproportionate punishment have begun to recognize that life-without-parole sentences for late adolescents are unconstitutional.

The authors conclude that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court should extend its ruling in Diatchenko I to hold that Article 26 prohibits life-without-parole sentences for all late adolescents, including those over age 20. They argue that this interpretation is consistent with the text of Article 26, evolving standards of decency, and the approaches taken by other states.

Summary of Argument

Some argue that the Massachusetts law prohibiting life sentences without parole for young adults aged 18 to 20 should extend to all young adults, even those over 20.

Arguments for Extending the Ban

1. Massachusetts Law is Broader than Federal Law

• Massachusetts law requires sentences to be fair to both the crime and the individual.

• It also prohibits "cruel or unusual" punishment, while federal law only prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment.

2. Science Shows Young Adults Are Still Developing

• Brain development continues into the early 20s.

• Young adults are less mature and more likely to make impulsive decisions.

3. National Trend Towards Recognizing Young Adulthood

• Other states are recognizing that young adults deserve different treatment in the justice system.

• They are extending the age of juvenile court jurisdiction and banning life sentences for young adults.

Conclusion

The Massachusetts Court should extend its previous ruling to ban life sentences without parole for all young adults over 18. This would be consistent with the state's commitment to fairness and the growing scientific and societal consensus that young adults are not fully mature and should not be punished as harshly as adults.

Summary of Argument

The Massachusetts Court is deciding if it's okay to sentence people ages 18 to 20 to life in prison without the chance of parole for murder. The answer is yes, but some people believe that this punishment should not be allowed for anyone under a certain age, even those over 20.

Background:

• In a previous case, the Massachusetts Court ruled that life without parole was not allowed for people under 18.

• The US Supreme Court has said that people under 18 deserve special protection when it comes to sentencing.

• However, the Massachusetts Court believes that it should have its own rules separate from the US Supreme Court.

Arguments for Extending the Ban:

• The Massachusetts Constitution protects people from cruel or unusual punishment.

• Life without parole is a very harsh punishment that should only be used in the most extreme cases.

• Science shows that young adults' brains are still developing, and they are less responsible for their actions than older adults.

• Many other states and countries are moving away from life without parole for young adults.

Conclusion:

The Massachusetts Court is being asked to decide if life without parole should be banned for all young adults, including those over 18. Some people believe that the ban should be extended because it is a cruel and unusual punishment that is not appropriate for people whose brains are still developing.

Summary of Argument

There's a law in Massachusetts that says people who commit murder when they're 18 to 20 years old can't be sentenced to life in prison without parole. That means they can't ever get out of jail.

But some people think this law should be changed. They believe that even people over 18 who commit murder should have a chance to get out of prison someday.

Why Do They Think This?

• Young people's brains are still developing. They're not as good at making decisions or controlling their emotions as adults.

• Society is changing. More and more people believe that young adults should be treated differently than adults when it comes to punishment.

• Other states are making changes. Some states have already banned life without parole for young adults.

The people who want to change the law say that it's not fair to lock young people up for life without giving them a chance to change and become better people. They believe that everyone deserves a second chance.