SJC sentencing ruling quickly stokes legislative debate

State House News Service//January 16, 2024//

Listen to this article

A divided Supreme Judicial Court overruled the Legislature on Jan. 11, holding that life sentences without the possibility of parole for offenders who were 18, 19 or 20 when they committed their crimes violate the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment and are unconstitutional. At least one lawmaker is already thinking about trying to undo the court’s ruling.

“Passing laws that make crimes and set sentences is the province of the Legislature, and if the majority of the court wants to get into that business then they ought to resign from the court and run for the Legislature,” Rep. Jeffrey Turco, a Winthrop Democrat, said on Jan. 11, responding to the court’s 4-3 ruling in Commonwealth v. Mattis.

Turco said he believes the only way to overturn the court’s “outrageous and dangerous” ruling is with a Constitutional amendment and that he is planning to file one next legislative session, as the agenda for this session’s Constitutional Convention is already set. He said he agreed with the justices who dissented on separation of powers arguments, particularly Justice Elspeth B. Cypher.

“What’s particularly troubling for me as a state legislator dealing with the issue of gun violence in our streets, and the House of Representatives and Senate debating gun safety laws … here we are trying to protect the public from the misuse of firearms and we have a court that says, ‘Be damned with the Legislature, we’re going to release these cold-blooded murderers or make them eligible for parole after 15 years,'” Turco said.

The Constitutional amendment process is long and involved. Doing it by legislative amendment requires a proposal to be approved by more than half of the combined membership of the House and Senate sitting as a Constitutional Convention over two separate two-year sessions of the Legislature. The proposal then would have to be approved by a majority of voters statewide.

Other lawmakers were pleased with the SJC’s ruling. Sen. Jamie Eldridge, a Marlborough Democrat, posted to X: “Bravo, a strong juvenile justice victory! #cjreform advocates estimate around 200 incarcerated people could be eligible for parole from SJC ruling, with more decisions to come.”

Attorney General Andrea J. Campbell renewed her support for “raise the age” legislation (H. 1710 / S. 942) that would raise the age of Juvenile Court jurisdiction to include 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds over the course of five years, a shift that supporters say is necessary for many of the reasons cited in the SJC’s ruling. That bill received a hearing before the Judiciary Committee in September.

“Today’s ruling underscores the importance of our legal system acknowledging the ongoing brain development of young people in order to improve public safety, reduce recidivism and deliver justice,” Campbell said on Jan. 11. “The science emphatically demonstrates that young people have an extraordinary capacity to change and mature, and our justice system should provide them the invaluable opportunity to turn their lives around and fulfil their potential.”