Mixed reaction to youth-sentencing ruling
The Lowell Sun
By Max Lewontin
The Boston University Statehouse Program
BOSTON -- A Supreme Judicial Court decision eliminating mandatory life sentences without parole for those who commit murder while under age 18 has forced emotional debate over when young killers should -- and shouldn't -- go free.
For many victims' families, the ruling brings back painful memories of losing a loved one at the hands of a juvenile killer.
"Obviously, we're disgusted," said Donna Villare, whose 79-year-old father, Lewis Jennings, was beaten and strangled in his Middleboro home in 1986 by Jeffrey Roberio, who was 17, and 20-year-old Michael Eagles.
"You can't say it's OK because of your age," she said. "This wasn't an accident. It wasn't a mistake.
TODAY'S QUESTION 6/2/14Do you agree with the state Supreme Judicial Court's ruling to eliminate life sentences without parole for murderers under age 18? Yes No
They should be responsible for their actions. That should be instilled in us. It doesn't matter your age."But state Sen. William Brownsberger, chair of the Joint Judiciary Committee, said the ruling offered the Legislature a chance to make distinctions between deliberately brutal and cruel homicides and street fights between juveniles of similar ages that end in death.
"I think the (courts) have recognized something that's an important reality," the Belmont Democrat said. "We should recognize that in some instances, serious crimes that occur when kids are still in a developmental stage are not representative of fundamental depravity."
The SJC's ruling in December essentially threw out a 1996 law requiring mandatory life sentences without parole for anyone convicted of a first-degree murder committed when the accused was older than 14.
The ruling followed a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a sentence of life without parole for juvenile murder.
Massachusetts ruling retroactive
The Massachusetts ruling applies retroactively, covering cases dating to the 1970s, and instructs the Legislature to set guidelines on parole eligibility for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder.
"I think the real tension is not just going to be how many years before someone is eligible for parole, but how parole guidelines might change for these juveniles," said Wendy Kaplan, a Boston University law professor who specializes in juvenile law.
The SJC cited research suggesting that juveniles' brains do not process actions in the same way as adults. Because of that, the court said, younger killers should not be held to the same standard as adults.
"The unconstitutionality of this punishment arises not from the imposition of a sentence of life in prison, but from the absolute denial of any possibility of parole," the justices wrote in their decision in Commonwealth v. Diatchenko, a 1981 case involving a murder by 17-year-old Gregory Diatchenko in Boston. "Given the unique characteristics of juvenile offenders, they should be afforded, in appropriate circumstances, the opportunity to be considered for parole suitability."
The Massachusetts Parole Board estimates that the court's decision would affect 65 people sentenced to life without parole who were juveniles when they committed their crimes.
Janis Noble, general counsel to the seven-member board, said the panel has begun scheduling parole hearings for 44 people who have served 15 years or more.
The first of those hearings took place last Thursday, as the board heard pleas from Joseph Donovan, sentenced to life without parole at 17 for the 1992 murder of MIT student Yngve Raustein, and Frederick Christian, convicted in 1998 for his role in the murders of three men in Brockton four years earlier when he was 17.
Noble said other hearings have been put on hold as defense attorneys wait for guidance from the Legislature.
A secondary battle is playing out in the courts over whether parole-eligible juvenile murderers can receive public money to hire a lawyer and other experts to aid them at the hearings.
Last Friday, SJC Justice Margot Botsford recommended that the full court hear two cases brought by lawyers for Diatchenko and Jeffrey Roberio.
Movement to change mandatory minimum sentences for juvenile murders began building after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
In January 2013, Gov. Deval Patrick filed a bill to make juveniles convicted of first-degree murder eligible for parole after serving 15 to 25 years. The bill also calls for new cases to be tried in juvenile court as opposed to state superior courts, which try adult cases of first-degree murder. Several other proposals are also under consideration.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, filed a bill in February that would require juveniles to serve 35 years before being eligible for parole. It was supported by more than 30 lawmakers and the Massachusetts District Attorneys' Association.
Several legislators have gone in the other direction, filing bills calling for parole eligibility for juveniles after serving between 10 and 25 years.
The judiciary committee held a three-hour hearing May 14 to discuss the bills. Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett, the association's president, questioned the argument that juveniles lack the brain development to be held to the same standards as adult murderers.
"We're extremely careful in how we charge (offenders)," Blodgett said. "When a decision is based solely on evolving science, that's a very slippery slope."
Brownsberger said lawmakers need to hear more on the issue.
"What's happening now is, 15 years is the effective number, but that doesn't answer the question of what the number should be," he said.
Brownsberger said it's important to recognize that each case of juvenile murder is different. Setting sentencing guidelines would allow judges to consider the facts of a case rather than be limited to a mandatory sentence of life without parole.
He cited the brutal rape and murder of Danvers High School teacher Colleen Ritzer in October. A student, 14-year-old Philip Chism, has been charged in the case.
"There's a range of things kids do," Brownsberger said. "Some of them, like this recent Danvers murder, they're horrible atrocities, and you know that person may never see the light of day. But other kids that get in a fight in some kind of street setting, they may be somebody really salvageable."
Juvenile-justice advocates say sentences of life without parole are administered unfairly, particularly in the wake of the 1996 mandatory-minimum law that came amid fears of juvenile "superpredators."
"We can't enact a law that only responds to the horrific crimes that are reported in the press," Gail Garinger, the state's child advocate and a former juvenile-court judge, said during the Statehouse hearing.
No clear guidelines
A 2011 investigation by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting found no clear guidelines for sentencing. While some juvenile killers received life without parole, others got lighter sentences by pleading guilty to a lesser charge.
The report noted that in 2000, Shrewsbury teen Valerie Hall, 16, was allowed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a dangerous weapon after pushing her mother down a flight of stairs and repeatedly hitting her with a hammer.
Hall had a history of depression and suicide attempts, prosecutors said. She was paroled to a halfway house in 2009.
But 17-year-old John Odgren, a special-needs student at Lincoln-Sudbury High School, was sentenced to life without parole in 2007 for the stabbing death of fellow student James Alenson, 15, in a school bathroom.
Kaplan, the law professor, said juveniles face different pressures in prison than adult prisoners.
"Parole boards should take into consideration things like, for example, what is an individual's disciplinary hearing record like, how has this person done in custody?" Kaplan said.
As the debate continues, some victims' families said they felt their perspectives were not addressed in the SJC decisions.
"This isn't right," Villare said. "It isn't justice. No one would want to go through this."
But other families aren't as certain.
William Dickerson's nephew, Germaine Rucker, was murdered at age 15 by 16-year-old Kentel Weaver in August 2003.
But Dickerson, a pastor at Greater Love Tabernacle Church in Boston's Dorchester section, believes a life sentence should not be the only option for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder.
"There's some people who, after getting into their adult years, become more productive and are able to speak to the next generation and tell them to get on the right path, and sometimes a person can mend their ways," he said.
Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_25879840/mixed-reaction-youth-sentencing-ruling#ixzz33axnB63v
The Lowell Sun
By Max Lewontin
The Boston University Statehouse Program
BOSTON -- A Supreme Judicial Court decision eliminating mandatory life sentences without parole for those who commit murder while under age 18 has forced emotional debate over when young killers should -- and shouldn't -- go free.
For many victims' families, the ruling brings back painful memories of losing a loved one at the hands of a juvenile killer.
"Obviously, we're disgusted," said Donna Villare, whose 79-year-old father, Lewis Jennings, was beaten and strangled in his Middleboro home in 1986 by Jeffrey Roberio, who was 17, and 20-year-old Michael Eagles.
"You can't say it's OK because of your age," she said. "This wasn't an accident. It wasn't a mistake.
TODAY'S QUESTION 6/2/14Do you agree with the state Supreme Judicial Court's ruling to eliminate life sentences without parole for murderers under age 18? Yes No
They should be responsible for their actions. That should be instilled in us. It doesn't matter your age."But state Sen. William Brownsberger, chair of the Joint Judiciary Committee, said the ruling offered the Legislature a chance to make distinctions between deliberately brutal and cruel homicides and street fights between juveniles of similar ages that end in death.
"I think the (courts) have recognized something that's an important reality," the Belmont Democrat said. "We should recognize that in some instances, serious crimes that occur when kids are still in a developmental stage are not representative of fundamental depravity."
The SJC's ruling in December essentially threw out a 1996 law requiring mandatory life sentences without parole for anyone convicted of a first-degree murder committed when the accused was older than 14.
The ruling followed a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a sentence of life without parole for juvenile murder.
Massachusetts ruling retroactive
The Massachusetts ruling applies retroactively, covering cases dating to the 1970s, and instructs the Legislature to set guidelines on parole eligibility for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder.
"I think the real tension is not just going to be how many years before someone is eligible for parole, but how parole guidelines might change for these juveniles," said Wendy Kaplan, a Boston University law professor who specializes in juvenile law.
The SJC cited research suggesting that juveniles' brains do not process actions in the same way as adults. Because of that, the court said, younger killers should not be held to the same standard as adults.
"The unconstitutionality of this punishment arises not from the imposition of a sentence of life in prison, but from the absolute denial of any possibility of parole," the justices wrote in their decision in Commonwealth v. Diatchenko, a 1981 case involving a murder by 17-year-old Gregory Diatchenko in Boston. "Given the unique characteristics of juvenile offenders, they should be afforded, in appropriate circumstances, the opportunity to be considered for parole suitability."
The Massachusetts Parole Board estimates that the court's decision would affect 65 people sentenced to life without parole who were juveniles when they committed their crimes.
Janis Noble, general counsel to the seven-member board, said the panel has begun scheduling parole hearings for 44 people who have served 15 years or more.
The first of those hearings took place last Thursday, as the board heard pleas from Joseph Donovan, sentenced to life without parole at 17 for the 1992 murder of MIT student Yngve Raustein, and Frederick Christian, convicted in 1998 for his role in the murders of three men in Brockton four years earlier when he was 17.
Noble said other hearings have been put on hold as defense attorneys wait for guidance from the Legislature.
A secondary battle is playing out in the courts over whether parole-eligible juvenile murderers can receive public money to hire a lawyer and other experts to aid them at the hearings.
Last Friday, SJC Justice Margot Botsford recommended that the full court hear two cases brought by lawyers for Diatchenko and Jeffrey Roberio.
Movement to change mandatory minimum sentences for juvenile murders began building after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
In January 2013, Gov. Deval Patrick filed a bill to make juveniles convicted of first-degree murder eligible for parole after serving 15 to 25 years. The bill also calls for new cases to be tried in juvenile court as opposed to state superior courts, which try adult cases of first-degree murder. Several other proposals are also under consideration.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, filed a bill in February that would require juveniles to serve 35 years before being eligible for parole. It was supported by more than 30 lawmakers and the Massachusetts District Attorneys' Association.
Several legislators have gone in the other direction, filing bills calling for parole eligibility for juveniles after serving between 10 and 25 years.
The judiciary committee held a three-hour hearing May 14 to discuss the bills. Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett, the association's president, questioned the argument that juveniles lack the brain development to be held to the same standards as adult murderers.
"We're extremely careful in how we charge (offenders)," Blodgett said. "When a decision is based solely on evolving science, that's a very slippery slope."
Brownsberger said lawmakers need to hear more on the issue.
"What's happening now is, 15 years is the effective number, but that doesn't answer the question of what the number should be," he said.
Brownsberger said it's important to recognize that each case of juvenile murder is different. Setting sentencing guidelines would allow judges to consider the facts of a case rather than be limited to a mandatory sentence of life without parole.
He cited the brutal rape and murder of Danvers High School teacher Colleen Ritzer in October. A student, 14-year-old Philip Chism, has been charged in the case.
"There's a range of things kids do," Brownsberger said. "Some of them, like this recent Danvers murder, they're horrible atrocities, and you know that person may never see the light of day. But other kids that get in a fight in some kind of street setting, they may be somebody really salvageable."
Juvenile-justice advocates say sentences of life without parole are administered unfairly, particularly in the wake of the 1996 mandatory-minimum law that came amid fears of juvenile "superpredators."
"We can't enact a law that only responds to the horrific crimes that are reported in the press," Gail Garinger, the state's child advocate and a former juvenile-court judge, said during the Statehouse hearing.
No clear guidelines
A 2011 investigation by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting found no clear guidelines for sentencing. While some juvenile killers received life without parole, others got lighter sentences by pleading guilty to a lesser charge.
The report noted that in 2000, Shrewsbury teen Valerie Hall, 16, was allowed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a dangerous weapon after pushing her mother down a flight of stairs and repeatedly hitting her with a hammer.
Hall had a history of depression and suicide attempts, prosecutors said. She was paroled to a halfway house in 2009.
But 17-year-old John Odgren, a special-needs student at Lincoln-Sudbury High School, was sentenced to life without parole in 2007 for the stabbing death of fellow student James Alenson, 15, in a school bathroom.
Kaplan, the law professor, said juveniles face different pressures in prison than adult prisoners.
"Parole boards should take into consideration things like, for example, what is an individual's disciplinary hearing record like, how has this person done in custody?" Kaplan said.
As the debate continues, some victims' families said they felt their perspectives were not addressed in the SJC decisions.
"This isn't right," Villare said. "It isn't justice. No one would want to go through this."
But other families aren't as certain.
William Dickerson's nephew, Germaine Rucker, was murdered at age 15 by 16-year-old Kentel Weaver in August 2003.
But Dickerson, a pastor at Greater Love Tabernacle Church in Boston's Dorchester section, believes a life sentence should not be the only option for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder.
"There's some people who, after getting into their adult years, become more productive and are able to speak to the next generation and tell them to get on the right path, and sometimes a person can mend their ways," he said.
Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_25879840/mixed-reaction-youth-sentencing-ruling#ixzz33axnB63v