The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled, in a split decision, that “emerging adults” aged 18 and 20 cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment. The majority’s lengthy decision concludes.
a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for eighteen through twenty year olds constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under art. 26 of our Declaration of Rights. That applies to both discretionary as well as mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for those eighteen through twenty years of age.
The case involved Sheldon Mattis who, at the age of 18, assisted in the shooting of two men. One of the victims died and the other was seriously injured. The crime took place in 2011 and Mattis was convicted of first degree murder.
Mattis appealed, arguing that he should be treated as a juvenile (even though he was an adult at the time the murder occurred.)
The Supreme Judicial Court summaries the issue on appeal as follows:
Here, we consider whether our [existing case law] should be extended to apply to emerging adults, that is, those who were eighteen, nineteen, and twenty years of age when they committed the crime. Based on precedent and contemporary standards of decency in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, We conclude that the answer is yes.
The justices then go from jurists to pseudo-scientist, reciting numerous “scientific” reasons why an “emerging adult” is not fully responsible for his criminal conduct.
The court concludes,
Our comprehensive review informs us that Supreme Court precedent, as well as our own, dictates that youthful characteristics must be considered in sentencing, that the brains of emerging adults are not fully developed and are more similar to those of juveniles than older adults, and that our contemporary standards of decency in the Commonwealth and elsewhere disfavor imposing the Commonwealth’s harshest sentence on this cohort. Consequently, we conclude that a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for emerging adult offenders violates art. 26.
Several justices broke from the majority. Both the opinion and the dissents are attached below.