Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Massachusetts House Bill H2054 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1	1 of 1
2	2	HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 1290 FILED ON: 1/14/2025
3	3	HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 2054
4	4	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
5	5	_________________
6	6	PRESENTED BY:
7	7	Christopher J. Worrell
8	8	_________________
9	9	To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General
10	10	Court assembled:
11	11	The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the adoption of the accompanying bill:
12	12	An Act to end mandatory life without the possibility of parole for the age of 21-25 and 364 days.
13	13	_______________
14	14	PETITION OF:
15	15	NAME:DISTRICT/ADDRESS :DATE ADDED:Christopher J. Worrell5th Suffolk1/14/2025 1 of 4
16	16	HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 1290 FILED ON: 1/14/2025
17	17	HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 2054
18	18	By Representative Worrell of Boston, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 2054) of
19	19	Christopher J. Worrell for legislation to end mandatory life without the possibility of parole for
20	20	certain young adults. The Judiciary.
21	21	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
22	22	_______________
23	23	In the One Hundred and Ninety-Fourth General Court
24	24	(2025-2026)
25	25	_______________
26	26	An Act to end mandatory life without the possibility of parole for the age of 21-25 and 364 days.
27	27	Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority
28	28	of the same, as follows:
29	29	1 SECTION 1. Whereas modern scientific research on brain development, including
30	30	2studies on the Prefrontal Cortex and Striatum, has established that cognitive maturation
31	31	3continues through early adulthood. Young adults aged 21-25 years and 364 days demonstrate
32	32	4incomplete development of impulse control and risk assessment.
33	33	5 Whereas scientific advancements have identified distinct stages of brain maturation,
34	34	6including Early Adolescents (12 and under), Middle Adolescents (13-17), Late Adolescents (18-
35	35	720), and Young Adults (21-25). The Striatum, which governs gratification, remains heightened
36	36	8into Young Adulthood.
37	37	9 Whereas evolving standards of decency dictate that the criminal justice system must take
38	38	10into account contemporary understandings of adolescent and young adult brain development.
39	39	11 Whereas research by Harvard University (2021) and Boston University’s Center for Anti-
40	40	12Racism (2023-24) has found that individuals of color in Massachusetts face disproportionately 2 of 4
41	41	13harsher treatment by the criminal justice system. Disparities in sentencing and plea deals result in
42	42	14non-white defendants receiving harsher sentences at 16 times the rate of their white counterparts.
43	43	15 Whereas economic and class disparities further exacerbate injustices in sentencing.
44	44	16Financial constraints limit access to adequate legal representation, underprivileged schools
45	45	17contribute to high incarceration rates among individuals lacking high school diplomas, and
46	46	18inadequate healthcare access negatively impacts mental and physical well-being.
47	47	19 Whereas mandatory life without parole for first-degree murder fails to account for the
48	48	20ongoing cognitive development of individuals aged 21-25 years and 364 days. Such sentences
49	49	21violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
50	50	22 Whereas Supreme Court decisions, including Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v.
51	51	23Florida (2010), Miller v. Alabama (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), have
52	52	24established jurisprudence recognizing the developmental differences of young offenders and the
53	53	25necessity of retroactive application of sentencing reforms.
54	54	26 Whereas scientific studies on adverse childhood experiences (ACES) demonstrate the
55	55	27long-term impact of trauma on cognitive and emotional development. Research links early-life
56	56	28exposure to violence, deprivation, and poverty to delayed brain maturation and increased risk-
57	57	29taking behavior.
58	58	30 Whereas contemporary psychological models and neuroscientific research affirm that
59	59	31exposure to threat and deprivation in early life significantly affects the development of brain
60	60	32systems responsible for executive function, impulse control, and decision-making. 3 of 4
61	61	33 Whereas research by Eveline Crone and Nikolaus Steinbeis (2017) establishes that
62	62	34cognitive abilities related to self-regulation continue to mature during adolescence and early
63	63	35adulthood.
64	64	36 Whereas studies by Christopher Holmes et al. (2020) demonstrate that older individuals
65	65	37(ages 25-31) are more likely to simultaneously activate both the Striatum and Prefrontal Cortex.
66	66	38This activation is associated with a decreased tendency to prefer immediate rewards.
67	67	39 Whereas studies by Rhoshel Lenroot et al. (2007) show that grey matter volume in the
68	68	40brain thins during adolescence and continues to thin into young adulthood. The Prefrontal
69	69	41Cortex, in particular, shows a 17% reduction in grey matter volume between ages 6-26.
70	70	42 Whereas Kathryn Mills et al. (2014) have found a developmental mismatch in structural
71	71	43brain maturation, indicating that stress significantly impairs decision-making, particularly in late
72	72	44adolescents and young adults.
73	73	45 Whereas a meta-analytic review by Sherecca Fields et al. (2014) has demonstrated that
74	74	46acute stress negatively impacts future-oriented decision-making. This effect is heightened in
75	75	47young adults.
76	76	48 Whereas a recent study by Jessica Uy and Adriana Galvan (2020) found that the extent of
77	77	49structural connectivity between the Prefrontal Cortex and the Striatum is linked to risky decision-
78	78	50making under stress in adolescents and adults.
79	79	51 SECTION 2. Any individual who, at the time of the commission of the offense, was
80	80	52between the ages of twenty-one years and twenty-five years and three hundred sixty-four days,
81	81	53and who has been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, shall be 4 of 4
82	82	54eligible for parole review. This provision shall apply retroactively to all individuals currently
83	83	55serving such sentences, as well as prospectively to future sentencing determinations.
84	84	56 SECTION 3. A charge of Felony Murder will result in a minimum term of 20 years with
85	85	57the possibility of parole. Premeditated Murder requires a minimum term of 25 years with the
86	86	58possibility of parole. Extreme Cruelty or Atrocity requires a minimum term of 30 years with the
87	87	59possibility of parole. Other First-Degree Murder Convictions require a minimum term of 20
88	88	60years with the possibility of parole.
89	89	61 SECTION 4. Mittimus Restructuring: Courts shall restructure sentences without requiring
90	90	62resentencing hearings. The Massachusetts Department of Corrections shall gather Mittimuses
91	91	63within 90 days and submit them to county Clerks for restructuring. County Clerks shall have 90
92	92	64days to modify and return Mittimuses to the Department of Corrections.
93	93	65 SECTION 5. Restorative Justice & Rehabilitation: Parolees must attend therapy or
94	94	66counseling. Parole officers shall ensure compliance. Therapy will address harm, trauma, impact,
95	95	67healing, and accountability. The cost of incarceration, ranging from $117,000 to $150,000 per
96	96	68year, should be redirected towards rehabilitation. Lifer parolees contribute positively to
97	97	69communities, reducing recidivism and societal burdens.