The Massachusetts Supreme Court abolishes all life without parole sentences for child defendants. The unthinkable has happened. Massachusetts has recently joined the conservative states of Texas, Colorado, and Wyoming, in abolishing life without parole imprisonment terms for child offenders under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes. Unthinkable, because for many years, Massachusetts has had some of the most harshest laws in the nation for child offenders convicted of murder. On December 24, 2013, in the case of Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District and Commonwealth v. Brown, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama has retroactive application to the 63 child offenders serving life without parole prison terms whose cases are currently on collateral review.
In the case of Miller, involving a 14 year old child offender convicted of murder, the United States Supreme Court declared that mandatory imposition of life without parole sentences on homicide offenders who were children at the time of their crimes violates the bar against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Miller decision, however, allowed the sentence of life with the possibility of parole to be had, while leaving intact the legal practice of imposing life without parole prison terms for child offenders who commit murder, so long as Millers hearing is provided beforehand.
In Diatchenko, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has gone further than the United States Court’s decision in Miller by ruling that all life without parole sentences for child offenders, whether mandatory or discretionary, violate Article 26 of the Massachusetts declaration of rights, that no magistrate or court of law shall inflict cruel or unusual punishments. In Brown, the Massachusetts Supreme Court further ruled that Brown is entitled to the benefit of Miller and Diatchenko, that he may not be sentenced to life without parole, and that he may only be sentenced to the lesser punishment of life imprisonment, with the possibility of parole set pursuant to the parole eligibility statute in effect at the time of Brown’s crime.
The decisions by the United States Supreme Court and Massachusetts Supreme Court makes one wonder what was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s thinking when, on October the 30th, 2013, it decided Commonwealth v. Cunningham, ruling that Miller does not retroactively apply to the current 500 plus child offenders in Pennsylvania who were sentenced to mandatory life without parole prison terms for first and second degree murder and whose cases are on collateral review. Hence, the 500 plus child lifer prisoners in Pennsylvania are not entitled to the benefit of Miller and not be sentenced to mandatory life without parole.
Thumbs up the Massachusetts Supreme Court for having a mind of its own and the statistical fortitude to do the right thing for child offenders, whom scientific research has shown; the brain of juveniles are not fully developed structurally or functionally. And thumbs down to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for not having the vertebrae to rule that Miller is retroactive to the 500 plus child lifers on collateral review, and to rule that all life without parole sentences for child offenders is unconstitutional under Article One, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania constitution. Then, Pennsylvania has the harshest laws for child offenders and leads the nation in rural and children serving life without parole prison terms, that’s 500 plus children sentenced to death by incarceration. Kerry Shakaboona Marshall.
These commentaries are recorded by Noel Hanrahan of Prison Radio.
