2023-09-26 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
2023-09-26 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
(Part 3 of 3)
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
[PART 3]
SPEAKER1 - Moving to people testifying virtually, Joan Stefan. No. Sarah's oh, Joan? Miss miss Stefan? Okay.
SPEAKER2 - Is my mic coming through?
SPEAKER1 - Yep. Go ahead. Yes. We can. Go right ahead.
SPEAKER2 - Okay.
JOAN STEFFEN - HARVARD LAW SCHOOL - HB 3955 - SB 1049 - Hello, and thank you to the committee. My name's Joan, I'm a fellow at the Institute to End Mass incarceration at Harvard Law School, but I'm testifying today in my personal capacity as someone with a loved one incarcerated in Massachusetts. I urge you to vote in favor of the second look Bill; H 3955 to create a pathway to reduce extreme sentences in Massachusetts. I know firsthand how parents, children, partners, and friends deeply love and cherish the people sentenced to languish in Massachusetts prisons. To capture the strength of these relationships, I'd like to share some anonymous quotes from an online support group for people with incarcerated loved ones. My heart breaks for him every day. My son kind of had a meltdown over not being able to see his daddy and have him here, he says he just wants his daddy home, it's just breaking my heart. Finally, the time has come, I get to go for a visit, 1400 miles round trip for six hours in total, but I will take it. I'm worried how bad it will be to leave out of there knowing I won't physically see him another eight months.
I've been struggling with trying to get into a routine that doesn't involve me lying in bed crying my eyes out. So, few people understand the real PTSD we on the outside experience from this life. Five plus years in, still lost most days. I love my visit time with my honey, but leaving really gets me in my feels, doesn't make it feel like I'm going home, rather, just a depressed place with all our memories haunting me. As a mother, my heart hurts. I have learned how to navigate better on my own, but some days I'm miss him so hard that I feel it in my bones. It's like a constant ache feeling like half of me is missing. Hang in there, you are allowed to133 dream and love him. Incarcerated people are worthy of our137 love. The second look act honors that love and dignifies the humanity of beloved prisoners. The law would provide a pathway to freedom for incarcerated people who have done the difficult work of self-reflection and personal149 growth and who can safely return to their loved ones embrace. We have always154 dreamed of bringing them home and now more and more Massachusetts residents are158 joining us in favoring second chances for incarcerated people. Now is the time for Massachusetts to shift paradigms from punishment to rehabilitation. Now is the time to grant hope to those who love, who care, who grow and who change. Although I focused my testimony on the second look act, I also want to voice support for the primary caretakers Bill for the same reason of the importance of loving relationships with people who are or who otherwise would be incarcerated. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. You for your testimony. Next, we have Sarah Stout also online. Good afternoon.
SARAH STAUDT - PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE - HB 3955 - Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Staudt, and I'm202 the advocacy and policy director for the204 prison policy initiative. We206 were founded in 2001 and are based in East Hampton, and we are a nonprofit210 nonpartisan organization that conducts research to expose the broader harms of Mass incarceration and Mass criminalization. Much of what needs to be said about second look today has already been said much better than I could by people who have actually experienced the harms of Mass incarceration, but I do want to spend a moment to focus on one of the things231 that sometimes people worry about, which233 is the comps of235 public safety. Massachusetts has the highest percentage of people serving life without parole sentences of any state in the nation, and, although that means that Massachusetts has done a great job of getting people out of prison who have less serious charges and should be commended for that, ultimately, we can't decrease the harms of Mass incarceration unless we address people with higher and more serious level charges. So, it's time for Massachusetts to provide a pathway to release for these individuals. What research tells us is that extreme sentences like life sentences actually harm public safety. In which analyze resources for its punishment, we use our precious public resources to keep people in prison instead of investing in evidence-based276 crime prevention and instead of reinvesting in our most vulnerable communities. It costs over $100,000 yearly to incarcerate a person in Massachusetts, and those causes rise astronomically for people who are elderly, which means the group of people who are affected by second look are a particularly expensive population, frankly.
Contrary to what most people think, people who would be affected by this law are also people who pose an extremely low risk to public safety. People released from prison for violent crimes have the lowest recidivism rates of any charge group, this is partially because of age. Criminal behavior peaks around 25, and then decreases massively as people age, and316 nationally,316 nearly 40% of people serving318 the longest prison terms were incarcerated before the age of 25. When we look specifically at the rates of recidivism for people released from life sentences through various part in second looking clemency programs, we see that those recidivism rates our minuscule. A study of 850 individuals in California found that just five returns to jail at prison for new felonies. In Maryland, a 2012 court case led to the release of 200 people convicted of violent sex related crimes over the next six years, only five of them returned to prison for any them. Second look sentencing provides a rigorous mechanism to determine whether a given individual is ready to be given a chance to return to society and allows all sides to present arguments and evidence about the person's behavior, their rehabilitation within prison, and their support system upon release. It is in line with best practices laid out by the American Law Institute's model penal code, and it provides judges with great discretion to decide whether or not second chances are warranted in a given case. It is a common sense, smart way to reduce Mass incarceration, and we would urge you to support it. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Great. Thank you so much. Miss Stout. Any questions from the committee members? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Now we have on the same bill up panel from the sensing project virtual, Alexander Bailey, Nazgul, Gundusch, and Warren Allen.
SPEAKER5 - Who would you like to go first, sir?
SPEAKER4 - Ah, you you're welcome too. Yes.
SPEAKER5 - Okay.
414 ALEXANDRA414 BAILEY414 -414 THE414 SENTENCING414 PROJECT414 -414 HB414 3955414 -414 Thank414 you so much to the members of the committee for having us here today. My name is Alexander Bailey, I'm the senior campaign strategist at the sentencing project. I'm also a former elected official in Washington, DC, and Chair of public safety. But I am431 here to talk today as433 a survivor, a two-time survivor of violent crime of the types of crimes that439 in these committees are often described as unforgivable. Childhood rape and domestic violence that left me with severe health consequences that I live with to this452 day. Every day for me starts with seizure medication because of head wounds. Every single day, I'm reminded of what happened to me, and people ask me constantly, how on earth can you do what you’d given what you've been through? Here's why;476 when I spoke to my perpetrator who I would testify on behalf of their release tomorrow, I found out that he was raped as a child and went on to488 harm me. I said to him, if I were to support your release, what would you do? He said, I would spend all of my time making sure that young black men who are sexually assaulted do499 not turn that anger and rage inward and then explode forward to harm somebody the way that I harmed you. I don't support second look merely because it is good policy, although it is. I support it because the people who are currently behind bars are the people who should be out here ensuring that what happened to me doesn't happen to other people. In Washington, DC, where I live, we have many second look recipients who are my neighbors, one of whom is my colleague who you will hear from, and as an elected official, they quite literally made my district safer as violence interrupters.
I can tell you, for a fact, we are not guessing that this Bill is not harmful, it is helpful. Do you want to know what heals a victim? Knowing that somebody is out here every single day, serving their555 restitution to me by ensuring that what happened to me doesn't happen to somebody else, that is meaningful. Putting them behind bars, subjecting them to solitary confinement,565 and everything else, that doesn't make me feel better, that doesn't heal me, that doesn't help me. If you care about survivors, then what576 you need to do is allow the people out who have earned it, who have learned from their own violence, who582 are willing to get in the way of others to help them to a better path. Please do not, in this legislative session, hide behind survivors because you will receive blowback about this Bill. Not597 all survivors are the same, there are people who can come out and601 ensure that what happened to me doesn't happen to other people. I ask you respectfully to report favorably on House Bill 3955. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Thank you very much, miss Bailey.
And the next next person wants to testify virtually,
Nazgul Ganush or Warren Allen?
SPEAKER6 - Yes.
WARREN ALLEN - THE SENTENCING PROJECT - HB 3955 - Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Warren Allen, and I'm638 a campaign fellow at the sentencing project. I'm also a642 recipient of a second look. I was sentenced to life, I'm one of the people who was deemed beyond repair or forgiveness. During my time inside, I studied at Georgetown University, I became a leader inside the walls, someone who kept the peace, I was referred to as black love. I became a man of the devolved spirituality. I served 22 years and when the incarceration reduction Amendment Act or second look was passed in Washington, DC, I was one of the first recipients. I spent time and I grew up with the people who have benefited from a second look. I am here on the behalf of nearly 200 people released on second look in DC. We are violence in688 the records, elected officials, youth mentors, key staffers for organizations fighting for a better city and world, religious leaders, parents, and good neighbors. We are the ones best702 able to turn young people704 around where they are heading down the wrong path. If you want that for the state of Massachusetts, then this legislation makes perfect sense. I can tell you for a fact that it's not a get out of jail free card, getting a second look is hard one, everything about you and your record725 is scrutinized. We made ourselves worthy of this in an environment that is antithetical to rehabilitation, any programming we weren't granted, we created. Second look is for those who have put in decades of hard741 work to better themselves and take responsibility. It is for those who are ready to come back with the commitment to of making the community better. I was once on a wrong path, today, I'm a father of a beautiful daughter, a husband, a taxpayer, a staff member of the sentencing project. Second chance is something we all need; you can offer769 those safely with House Bill 3955. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Naskel?
SPEAKER7 - Hi. Yes.
NAZGOL GHANDNOOSH - THE SENTENCING PROJECT - HB 3955 - Thank you so much. Thanks to my colleagues, to all the panelists, and to the committee for going into overtime. I'm Nazgol Ghandnoosh, co-director of research at the sentencing project. In 2021, I authored a report examining a powerful tool to curb Mass incarceration and its racial disparities, and that is second look policies that enable extreme sentences to be reevaluated. I'm very pleased that you are now considering becoming part of this growing movement, and I urge you to pass House Bill 3955. I want to share with you some of the empirical and legal support for second look reforms, which I elaborate on in my written testimony. Ending Mass incarceration and its racial disparities require taking a second look at long sentences. Nationwide, nearly one in every five people in US prisons have already served at least 10 years. In Massachusetts, the rate is even higher with nearly 1/4 of the prison population having already served840 at least 10 years. Reevaluating lengthy sentences is a racial justice issue because while black Americans are vastly overrepresented in the prison population, this disparity widens among those serving lengthy sentences. In 2019, black Americans represented857 14% of the US population, 33% of the total prison population and 46% of the prison population that had already served at least 10 years. In recognition of facts like these, the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine has recommended scaling back lengthy sentences and specifically identified second look reforms as an important tool for achieving this goal. Crim logical research has established that lengthy sentences are at odds with best practices for advancing public safety.
You've heard about research on recidivism, which shows that people that serve long and particular, those that serve the longest sentences are the least likely to recidivate, there are also studies of criminal careers902 showing that most people desist904 from criminal activity within four906 to 12 years after they begin, and finally, long sentences fail to deter other people from committing crime because most people reasonably actually do not expect to be apprehended, they're not familiar with relevant criminal penalties, or they can make crime with their judgment compromised with substance use or mental health problems. Legal experts have relied on evidence like this to recommend that resentencing happen within 10 to 15 years of incarceration, that934 includes934 the American Law Institute's model penal code, as you've heard about, but also the American Bar Association's House of Delegates has recommended resentencing after 10 years. You're in great company with this Bill, in 2019. And again, last year, Senator Cory Booker introduced the second look act, which would allow everyone in federal prisons who's spent at954 least 10 years incarcerated to petition courts to reconsider their sentence.958 You've heard about DC Bills, DC's law, which has enabled the release of my colleague, Warren Allen, by now dozens of states have passed or are considering some kind of second look law. So, I973 hope you recognize the scientific and moral underpinning of this reform and report favorably on this Bill. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Thank you. So we're moving on to house 15 1756, 79 54 and act ensuring integrity and juvenile992 interrogations. First up, we have a panel, Kristen Wheeler, and Lisa Thoreau.
LISA THOREAU - STRATEGIES FOR YOUTH - HB 1756 - SB 954 - Thank you very much, Senator Eldridge and Representative Barber for holding today's hearing. I'm Lisa1016 Thoreau, I'm from1018 strategies for youth, which is an organization that exists to ensure that all law enforcement interactions with youth have the best possible outcome. I'm here today to explain why the legislation Representative Sabadosa has submitted with Senator DiDomenico and which we have worked on with them because I think it's key to ensuring not only the best outcomes, but key to ensuring some of the four themes I'm hearing here today; the first being, this state needs to get its laws aligned with science, not with other motives. I also hear the theme of equity being critical in all our choices, and finally, the need to address the importance of keeping all sections of the legal system from the gatekeepers who are law enforcement to the prison systems on the same1086 page of moving towards public safety1088 and equity is a key here. So those four themes really also under guard our support for this legislation. Very quickly, what we wanted to assert here is that we all recognize that the science is irrefutable that the teen brain is different than the adult brain and we have heard that time after time today, which also really underlines the need to rethink making 18 as the cutoff of age of so many young people in our system.
Recognizing that the teen brain is different that it is impulsive, it is reactive, it doesn't process the same way adults do because it is physically not fully matured, makes the fact that using deceit or deception during an interrogation in a highly stressful situation with youth on its face questionably immoral. We also think though when you look at the racial disparities in Massachusetts, and know that interrogations are typically reserved for the most serious offenses, the use of interrogations that invoke deceit or deception is particularly disturbing for racial disparities that it promotes, many of which we've heard about through the joint venture law, but also through, the fact that it's taking great liberties with kids who are possibly compromised in some way due to mental health disability, due to developmental or intellectual disabilities, due to historic fear of law enforcement or due to other reasons, including fear of deportation. With that, I'll turn over to Kristin Wheeler who has prepared testimony that's excellent.
KRISTIN WHEELER - STRATEGIES FOR YOUTH - HB 1756 - SB 954 - HB 1650 - HB 3922 - Good evening. Thank you, Chair Eldridge, vice Chair Barber, and members of the committee. I am Kristin Wheeler, the staff attorney at strategies for youth and a former public defender with CPCS here to testify in support of H 1756 and S 954 and also support two other Bills for the committee today, H 1650, and H 3922, all of which offer the people of the Commonwealth common sense protections during police interrogations. This Bill does what many of your constituents are shocked to learn is not already the case. It stops law enforcement from lying to youth during custodial interrogations. Eight states do not let their law enforcement do this; California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Oregon, and Utah. I'm here today to ask that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts join this growing list. This Bill protects youth and promotes public safety by preventing false confessions. Since statements elicited from young people through deceptive tactics are unreliable, this Bill would prevent those unreliable statements from being used against youth in their court cases and by police in their pursuit of the right perpetrators. Passing this Bill will increase integrity across our legal system, as well, including the recording requirement referenced by Representative Sabadosa and mirrored in H 3922 and H 1650.
A clear record of a custodial interrogation protects law enforcement from claims of coercion, it prevents deceptive tactics from overwhelming youth in the shadows, and allows prosecutors and defenders to fully assess the merits of court filings preventing unnecessary litigation. At its root, the reality that law enforcement is allowed to lie to kids undermines law enforcement's legitimacy within our communities. I know this because as part of my job, I get to speak with young people across the Commonwealth and across the country about law enforcement interactions, what the rules are and how to navigate them safely. This has given me a lot of insight into their thoughts and feelings about police. I can tell you the gap here between youth and police is wide and not bridge with the current state of this law. Asking our young people to respect laws and law enforcement while permitting them to be lied to and deceived by the same does not promote positive police youth relationship or help build bridges. If I could stand before a room of young people in the Commonwealth and tell them that their lawmakers decided police will not be allowed to lie to them in custodial interrogations, I know what I would see. I know what I would see because when I get to deliver news like this in other states, I see appreciation, I see relief, I see hope, and I see a defensiveness start to melt away. That's what translates into true community trust in the laws enacted here and in those tasked with enforcing them out there. Please support this constellation of Bills on police interrogations. Thank you for your time and consideration.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER10 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Are there any questions for the panel seen on? Thank you so much for your time. Aaron Stewart,
She's hunting?
Erin Stewart, are you available virtually?
Moving on to an act relative to treatment on imprisonment. We have another panel, Lisa Newman Polk. Luke Ryan and Julie Eldred, who is virtual.
LISA NEWMAN POLK - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 982 - HB 1391 - Good evening. I'm Lisa Newman Polk, unfortunately, several people supporting this Bill had to leave already, so I just want to note at the outset, the huge coalition of organizations that we have supporting this Bill because I think it's important to get into the record; Massachusetts Medical Society, Massachusetts Society of Addiction Medicine, BMC, Grayken Center for Addiction, National Association of Social Workers, MGH Brigham, MGH Center for Law, Brain and Behavior. CPCS, ACLU Health Legal Advisors Committee, Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery, Health and Justice Action Lab at the Center for Health policy in law at Northeastern law school, Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and I think that wraps up our major list. Most importantly, this is supported by every person I talk to who has been impacted by incarceration because of a drug relapse. What this Bill does, and I know both1467 of you, and you are very familiar with it, so I'll turn to you, Rep Mendez, and explain, you know, what this Bill does is if somebody is on probation and test positive for drugs, which includes alcohol and they are in treatment, they cannot be incarcerated, this aligns the science with our law. Right now, it is a very normal and average condition, in fact, I would say, it's the regular condition that when people are put on probation, if they have an addiction, they're ordered to be drug free and to drug testing and they're ordered to treatment.
The problem is that when people are in treatment, they test positive because they have a relapse because it's not a linear process in recovery. They are either threatened with jail or they're actually put in jail or prison, this is incredibly problematic. We have to be groundbreaking and finally do what is right for people with addiction and stop criminalizing what we know is an illness. You know, if it was a way to solve our opioid crisis, our addiction crisis, by locking people up or just ordering people to be drug free, we'd have a cured nation, but instead, we have an ongoing addiction problem. So, I really, really, just like Senator Friedman beg you, plead with you to please get this Bill out of committee, it is supported by all of the organizations that are experts in this field, it is supported by people with lived experience. I want to note that more could not be here today because they are out on recovery day, they're with the Governor, they're with the Mayor of Boston, so they have a huge march today. Finally, in closing, I just want to say that I could be here in support of all of the major Bills that you have noticed1574 or have been talked to about so far. There are a lot of people that I care about deeply who are impacted by second look, raise the age joint venture, and the juvenile false confessions. All of these are1587 so important, you all have power please, please, please do something with that power and get these Bills out of committee.1593 Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Julie Eldred. Thank you. So are are Julie Eldred and Luke Ryan available online.
SPEAKER11 - Was on for a while, but he can't make it. He'll submit testimony, but Julie should be online.
SPEAKER1 - Okay.
SPEAKER13 - Yes. I'm here. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - We can. Go right ahead.
SPEAKER13 - Alright.
JULIE ELDRED - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 982 - HB 1391 - Hi, I'm Julie Eldred. Some of you might be familiar with my case, it's the one that Lisa brought to the SJC arguing that I should not have been locked up for relapsing while on probation. I also just want to say that although Lisa brought this case forward on my behalf, she really brought it on behalf of the hundreds of people across the state every year who are incarcerated struggling with addiction in order to be drug free1645 on probation or face incarceration like I was. I'm grateful I'm in a good place today, but jail was not what was helped, like beneficial to me, it did not help me. The threat of being locked up for relapsing made it worse, what helped me was good treatment and being able to be honest with the people around me in my recovery. I don't even feel like my recovery even really started until I was off of probation. When I was on probation and I had a relapse, I was not able to be honest with my program because I was afraid, I was going to be locked up and the counselors at my halfway house were obligated to tell my probation officer if I relapsed, so I didn't feel like I could come forward and tell the truth. I'm thankful for Lisa and my family because I was able to open up to them, and also my Suboxone doctor, I was able open up to him, and he helped1707 me get back on track. But I had to keep secrets from the people that were supposed to be in my treatment and people that were supposed to be able to help me, but I wasn't able to come to them. You know, having the stipulation of to remain drug free or be incarcerated only set me back. A huge part of recovery is being able to be honest with the people that are a part of your treatment plan. Once I was off probation, I did feel like I was able to move forward with my recovery and my healing, so having the threat of going to jail did not keep me clean, finding the right treatment did. I also want to say that, it can take a couple different tries to find the right treatment program, it took me a few tries. I have six years clean now, so coming here, I hope to help others who are struggling with addiction, and having to deal with the court system. So, I feel like more people would choose recovery if the threat of jail wasn't there. So that's it, and, thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, and thank you for sharing your story. It's appreciated. Any questions? Seeing then. Next, we have Rebecca Gowards, where I think has left? Okay. Arnie Stewart?
ARNIE LUCINDA STEWART - COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES - SB 982 - HB 1391 - Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. My name is Arnie Lucinda Stewart, and I am the Deputy Chief Counsel of the1832 Public Defender Division at the Committee for Public Counsel Services. I have been a public defender for 26 years, but prior to being a public defender, I was a police officer and vice investigator in the nation's capital. We support this Bill, an act relative to treatment, not imprisonment. To allow judges to order a probationer to engage in treatment and prohibit imposing incarceration when relapse is the only infraction and when the probationer is engaged and participating in treatment. Many individuals on probation are employed, many are supporting families, and they are actively checking in with treatment providers and their probation officers. This Bill will incentivize treatment to keep individuals focused on their wellness and sobriety journey. Keeping these individuals in treatment will end desperate outcomes, between different counties, different court houses, different judges, it will elevate fundamental fairness and provide uniform outcomes. How a positive drug test is treated varies incredibly from courthouse to courthouse, judge to judge day to day.
With respect to relapse as the sole violation, the outcome that happens in Pittsfield should happen in Boston, should happen in Hyannis, and across the Commonwealth alike. It should not depend on pulling the judge longs drop. Some may say that judges don't surrender individuals for relapse violations only, I spoke with practitioners in our 17 trial offices and I can tell you that the practice of surrendering for only a relapse violation does happen. I acknowledge that as a Commonwealth we have come a long way in recognizing substance use disorder as an illness, more and more judges and probation officers are used their discretion to not incarcerate people, but the actualization of incarceration for relapse alone is a very real scenario. When relapse is the only infraction, some individuals may go on what they call the run, but they are not running from treatment, they are running from the fear of incarceration. The threat of jail interferes with the goal of sobriety and wellness and I ask you to support treatment, not incarceration. Thank you for your time and attention. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions? Yeah. See that. Thank you. Next, we have a panel, Deb Goldfarb, and Miriam, comma, roaming.
Is it both of them?
SPEAKER11 - Both. Yeah. CSC.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. Amelia Karamadre.
AMELIA CARAMADRE - THE ACTION LAB - SB 982 - HB 1391 - Thank you so much for hearing me. My name is Amelia Caramadre, I'm a public health attorney2040 with the action lab at Northeastern University School of Law. I focus on civil rights for people's addiction and I'm advocating for the2046 passage of House Bill 1391 and Senate Bill 982, an act relative to treatment, not imprisonment. This Bill is important and lifesaving. Relapse by definition is a part of the disease of addiction. Relapse does not mean that treatment is failing, rather, it indicates that it's a process of ups and downs that should be treated by health care professionals, not incarceration. To incarcerate first symptom of a disease is antithetical to the concept of justice, it displaces people from their treatment journey, forcing them to start over upon release, and exposes them to an increased risk of fatal overdose and jail and a populace. I'll share two brief stories. The first is a client's story; my client was in treatment while on probation, and he was incarcerated for a positive drug screen. Upon incarceration, he was denied continuation of his medication for opioid use disorder. He went through a very painful withdrawal from his medication and since his treatment was denied, his cravings for opioids became unbearable. He sought out drugs in jail, knowing he'd be at heightened risk for overdose due to his decreased tolerance for opioids, but he didn't care, that didn't matter, the treatments were too strong. Thankfully, he couldn't find any drugs in jail. He kept fighting to get his treatment and was eventually successful because of regulations around administration of the addiction, treatment, and jail are so stringent, he kept being falsely accused of diverting his medication for simple miscommunication, like forgetting to take his dentures out.
The false accusations plus numerous false positive drug screens which is a very common problem resulted in a lot of lost time and solitary confinement. This all really should have been avoided, instead we have a system that compounds the barrier to care rather than, adjust them. This Bill will mitigate much of that damage. Second, I wanted to share a personal story; my dad was on probation with orders to refrain from drug and alcohol use when I was younger. Each time a probation2153 officer showed up on my house, the fear that he would be taken back to prison for any reason was sickening and traumatizing. One time the probation officer showed up early in the morning for a random drug test right after my dad had used mouthwash. The mouthwash caused a positive breath test for alcohol,2170 luckily, we convinced probation officer to wait a moment and try the test the second time. I can still remember the physical and mental pain I felt as I prayed that the second part should be negative. The constant abuse and face, the constant violation of his rights, the prayers asking God to2183 let me see my dad alive again each time as I left the prison when I was visiting him, it all came crashing back of fear of him being taken, again, became a possibility if that second test was negative. Losing a family member to prison because of a relapse or positive drug test is crushing, scarring, destructive, and traumatizing. It was just on nobody, it hurts the individual and every single person around them, we need to protect people better than that. So, I ask you to please support this, Bill. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony.
Next, we have Benjamin Keen virtually?
Do you have Ben Keane?
SPEAKER16 - I'm here. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - We can. Go ahead.
SPEAKER16 - Okay. Sorry. I don't know where where the visual is.
BENJAMIN KEEHN - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 982 - HB 1391 - Thank you very much for your time. My name is Benjamin Keehn, I've been a practicing criminal defense lawyer for over 35 years, and I'm speaking in favor of an act relative to treatment, not imprisonment. For as long as I can remember, clients with substance use disorders have faced the threat or the reality of being incarcerated for testing positive and this is a problem that continues, notwithstanding changes in what some judges have come to understand about the medical issues of addiction. Within the last several months, I met with my client's primary care physician and a social worker. This is a client who was under supervision and on a no drugs or alcohol enforceable order, he had relapsed and he went to his doctor for help and he was obviously in bad shape. He was skinny, he was perspiring, he was pale, he was miserable. The social worker and I began to brainstorm how we might get our client into detox without triggering a violation of the terms of his release and his primary care physician interrupted. She had been taking care of him for several years2331 at this point. and she said, can I just say something here that this is crazy, this conversation you're having is crazy. When a patient of mind presents with heart palpitations and chest pains, I don't engage in an analysis of the costs and benefits of seeking treatment, I get them to the emergency room as soon as possible. This is a medical emergency, and it is simply untenable for me as his doctor to be caught between whether he should be getting medical treatment that might result in his incarceration. The Bill before you would go a long way to ending this cruel dilemma forced to choose between treatment and incarceration, which citizens in Massachusetts suffering from the illness of addiction are enduring every day. Thank you for your time, I appreciate SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
it.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
SPEAKER17 - We have a number
SPEAKER1 - of people who signed in today on this bill. So Claire Massenton.
SPEAKER18 - If you don't mind, I'd like to stand because we've been sitting all day.
SPEAKER1 - Go right ahead.
SPEAKER18 - Have you.
CLAIRE MASINTON - MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL ADVISORS COMMITTEE - SB 982 - HB 1391 - I am Claire Masinton, I am a staff attorney with Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee. This is actually a state agency nobody knows about. Under the SJC, we mostly operate as a nonprofit, in terms of how we go about our business, and we represent folks, particularly in partial settings, hospitals, etcetera, with mental health issues. I don't want to belabor the points that these folks made so beautifully, I just want to say the science is in, the data is in, substance use disorder is not a moral failing, substance use disorder is a disease. You have the power, I'm a litigator, so I do this, it's very inefficient, right? It's a backward-looking thing, we litigate, we try to write wrongs. You have the ability to pass policy can affect change. This is a no cost Bill; this is a save money Bill for people who are cynical about the impacts of it. Someone's on probation, they relapse, they're actively engaged in treatment, they should not be sent back to jail or prison. I'm in and out of DOC facilities, HOC facilities all the time, they are not engaged in good mental health. I know you've been there; I know you're there all the time, thank you for that.
They're not engaged2488 in mental health treatment;2490 they're not engaged in substance use disorder treatment in any effective sense of the word. So, this is not the answer, we know it's not the answer, we know it's not the answer. People who are in recovery, they're going to relapse from time to time, this cannot be a basis for putting them back in jail. I'm trying to be short, this is a long day, it's a long evening. The way to cut to the chase here, you have 6000 Bills in front of you, I don't know how many you have, 10,000, I don't know how many you have each session? These are Bills that won't cost a penny, I don't see anybody up here opposing them, I think they will affect tremendous change. You know, several of these Bills were in great support of the second look act, the raise the age, getting rid of the joint venture. I know many of those men who came before you today, and I just want to say that MHLAC supports this Bill unequivocally, all of the ones that I just mentioned, in addition to the juvenile cops misleading them in testimony or in questioning, which I think should go for all cops in all situations with all interrogations. But we are very much in support of an act relative to treatment, not imprisonment, and, thank you for hearing me, and I beat the clock.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Okay. Good. Good. Nice work. Appreciate it. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Jennifer Sunderland.
JENNIFER SUNDERLAND - MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS - SB 982 - HB 1391 - My name is Jennifer Sunderland; I am the vice president of the Massachusetts Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers. So, I'm speaking on this Bill on behalf of the organization. I don't want to add anything, I think the points have been made, the only thing I do want to say is that the threat of incarceration for clients who have relapsed is very real. I spend most of my time practicing in the state trial courts and representing indigent clients, and yesterday afternoon in Suffolk Superior Court, I represented two clients whose probation officer was seeking to have both of them incarcerated pending a final surrender because they had only tested positives. They were both actively engaged in treatment, and they were both seeking to get other treatment. The point I'm trying to make is that these practical realities which exist that created the need for this Bill continue to exist, and the Bill is very narrowly tailored and would have an immediate practical impact for clients and, frankly, for practitioners who I spent an afternoon in court yesterday that could have been better served doing something else, trying to keep them from being incarcerated. So, thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Oh, 1 question.
SPEAKER14 - Yeah. So
SPEAKER4 - I have a question. So
SEN ELDRIDGE - So why do you think that officer was seeking that? What was his or her rationale?
2661 SUNDERLAND - Well, I'm asked, and the probation department at least in the county that I practice in South Superior Court has a policy, I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but I've been told repetitively that the policy is that if that someone tests positive, they're going to seek detention because the probation officers view is that detention in an incarcerated setting somehow is going to help them achieve better outcomes with respect to their addictions. It used to be that they would say that they would do that just if someone tested positive for fentanyl, neither of my clients had tested positive for fentanyl yesterday. So, it's my understanding, it's the policy of certain probation officers or certain departments to seek incarceration after positive screens for the safety2708 reasons pertaining to the client.
ELDRIDGE - Absolutely. And I would just say it often that is the policy or often that is the sincere belief of a lot of those officers and that's obviously the dynamic that's going on here SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
in the legislature.
So yep.
SPEAKER19 - Yeah. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Stephanie, Tabishneck.
Apologies on your name on my pronunciation.
SPEAKER12 - Hi.
STEPHANIE TABASHNECK - PETRI-FLOM CENTER - SB 982 - HB 1391 - Good evening. I'm here to support this bill, and my name is Doctor Stephanie Tabashneck, I'm a psychologist and attorney at the Petri-Flom Center for Health Policy at Harvard Law School and the Center for Law Brain and Behavior at Harvard Medical School. I train judges in Massachusetts and nationally and internationally on addiction, and I'm really happy to be here. So, a lot of people think that addiction is nonsensical, why would people continue to use after so many consequences to their life. And I kind of liken it to sitting before a Thanksgiving dinner after not eating for five days and being told that you can't eat. So, addiction lives in the same regions of the brain that our will to survive, that our will to live exist and this is why cravings are so powerful. So, I'm here today to ask for your help, I am a therapist and I work with people who have addiction and my job is made so much harder by these laws and making sobriety a condition of probation. I'm here today to talk about a client, I'm going to name him Henry to protect his confidentiality, but I'm speaking about him with his permission. I've worked with him for 1.5 years, and every week, he's shown up to treatment, he's done everything that I've asked him to do, he has a recovery coach who's also here today to testify.
Henry has a history of alcohol use disorder and he committed a non-violent crime that I think most of us would say is relatively minor. Sobriety was listed as a condition of this probation, and of the last 365 days, he has spent 357 sober, and in my field, that is a win. What has happened in the past three months has been incredibly difficult for Henry and for me as his therapist who's trying to help him. So, this summer, he spent nearly a month in jail after he used alcohol and blowed a positive scam result. He didn't commit any other crime, he was doing great, he was engaged in treatment, and what was most challenging is that this was a clinical win, because he told me immediately, and we had him tell his mom, and he told his mom, and I prepped his mom with a script and she conveyed her love. So clinically, things were going really well, but from a criminal justice perspective, it didn't. When he was incarcerated, he was exposed to methamphetamine, opioids, and he barely made it out, and if he uses again in the next two years, the judge has been very clear that he will go to jail. To be frank, it is very unlikely that he's going to make it these next two years. So, I am here today to beg you for your support of this Bill, again, to make my job easier on behalf of clients like Henry. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Jennifer McGee,
SPEAKER20 - I downloaded a teleprompter.
JENNIFER MCGEE - VITAL PATHWAYS CONSULTING - SB 982 - HB 1391 - Good evening. My name is Jennifer McGee, I'm a mental and Addiction nurse with 14 years’ experience in the field. I also support individual clients as a wellness and recovery coach and patient advocate through my consultancy, Vital Pathways. I, myself, am a testament to the recovery journey. Today, I'm here to advocate for more compassionate approaches to addiction by way of 1391, an act relative to treatment over imprisonment. Although I haven't personally experienced the weight of criminal penalties in my personal journey, my professional trajectory has led me to support numerous individuals grappling with addiction. Over the past six years, I have witnessed firsthand through my work in the community, the profound and often traumatic impacts of the punitive nature of our judicial system on those desperately seeking to rebuild their lives. The imposition of criminal penalties for relapses or minor infractions can significantly derail the recovery process. It creates an environment of fear where the individual is constantly anxious about the potential legal consequences instead of focusing solely on their path to healing. This anxiety can exacerbate the very issues they're trying to overcome driving them deeper into the cycle of addiction.
This living fear of prosecution also potentially creates barriers to treatment, preventing individuals from full disclosure of the struggles that they are facing. Furthermore, when a person in recovery faces legal penalties, they often confront a stigma that is doubly magnified, not only the label of an addict, but also that of a criminal. This dual stigma can hinder their reintegration into society, impacting their ability to find stable employment, housing and even affecting interpersonal relationships. I'd like to share with you an excerpt from a letter from a former client with her permission who encapsulates the challenges faced by many. She says, my journey to sobriety required patience and forgiveness from people who had the ability to see the progress in my missteps. True sobriety is a process like crocheting and intricate design. Steps cannot be skipped, and no threads can be pulled too tight or let too loose. Just like the most beautiful designs, sometimes threads need unraveling before they can come together the way3031 they were meant to. Some look at a gap in the yarn and see failure without remembering that they haven't always known how to even hold their hooks. I remember being so afraid of what life would be like sober.
I didn't need to be told of all that I had to lose if I chose to continue using. I'm forever grateful for the people in my support system who went the opposite route for me, those who never let me forget all the things I had to gain and who gave me the confidence I didn't have to believe in myself. For every dark thought that I had that tried to keep me down, I was shown a brighter path lit by better choices. There is nothing truer about addiction than that the opposite of it is connection. Stripping an addict of their options by way of punitive is to strip them of a way to connect. Rehabilitation requires the ability to feel safe and secure with moving forward. An addict cannot recover in punishment as they have lived in punishment for the entirety of their disease. Freedom from punishment allows an addict space to examine their own actions for what they are without the fear of the repercussions of personal reflection. It is crucial to understand that the journey to sobriety requires connection, understanding, and support and by criminalizing addiction, we are severing these very ties that can help someone rebuild their life. It's time that we shift our focus from punitive measures to rehabilitative ones. So, I am here to advocate for the prioritization of treatment over imprisonment. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Corinne Bobergard. Boguard? She has a lead of accounts. Okay. Todd Kerensky.
SPEAKER11 - He's been trying to get here back here, but I don't know if he can get in the building, so if he
SPEAKER9 - comes back in on fire.
SPEAKER1 - K. With that, we're moving on to house 14 60, and Robert Fleyshner, who I believe is virtual.
ROBERT FLEISCHNER - MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH - HB 1460 - Good evening. My name is Bob Fleischner, I'm here testifying on behalf of the Massachusetts Association for Mental Health in support of House 1460, a Bill you haven't heard about yet today. A Bill that would encourage the use of community-based evaluation for competency to stand trial in criminal cases. When courts order defendants to be evaluated for competency, the defendants often find themselves either in a DNA hospital or Bridgewater State Hospital, usually for several months. Delays caused by competency evaluations delay justice. Delays can result in lost evidence on available witnesses, faded memories, victims are interested in seeing justice done promptly. Defendants are often interested in raising their defenses and establishing their innocence or otherwise resolving their cases. Little data is available about this, but we do know that mental health systems in Massachusetts and across the country have experienced dramatic increases and the demand by courts for competency evaluations. National statistics show that courts are ordering far more defendants to undergo in hospital competency evaluations and that evaluators are finding far greater portion of people referred to them to be incompetent to stand trial. This places a tremendous strain from the United States.
For example, there was a 31% increase in court conference to Bridgewater State Hospital in 2021 as compared to the previous year. Most of these were likely orders for competency events. DMH and its contract at hospitals are extremely overburdened by court ordered evaluations. A significant portion of DMH hospital beds is filled with people who are being held for forensic evaluations, this causes a serious ripple effect throughout the mental health system. As forensic admissions increase, there's correspondingly a decline in non-forensic admissions. Last month, in August, DMH operated hospitals admitted 91 people from courts and not a single person from an inpatient acute care hospital. This means that people awaiting in acute care hospitals for longer term care are denied a bed. In April of 2023, there were 104 people in private psychiatric hospitals who were temporarily3279 transferred to one DMH who could not find a bed. In turn, the result in acute care psychiatric beds means that emergency room boarding is exacerbated as ERs are unable to find beds for their patients. This Bill would address the crushing impact of increased numbers of forensic evaluations by moving competency evaluations to the community whenever that is appropriate. It will free up DMH's long term care beds allowing people stuck on acute care units and EDs to access needed care. The Massachusetts Association for Mental Health urges you to report House 1460 out favorably. We've submitted pretty detailed written testimony to the committee, we ask you to act favorably on it, and thank you very much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you for your testimony on this bill. Thank you. Moving on, we are going to senate 1049 and act relative to diversion for primary caretakers. First, we have Malorie Hanaura. Smeller? She yeah. If she's Janissa James no, Mallory. That you're here. Someone went to Keith.
SPEAKER23 - And before my time, just to our team, Johnny Sha James and Angelia Jefferson unfortunately had go, but they'll be submitting Great. Written testimony. Great. Thank you.
MALLORY HANORA - FAMILIES FOR JUSTICE AS HEALING - SB 1049 - Good evening. My name is Mallory, I'm the director of families for Justice as healing. Our mission is to end the incarceration of women and girls and I'm testifying in support of an act relative to diversion for primary caretakers, S 1049. I wanted to share at the outset that more than 90 organizations across the Commonwealth have signed on to support, the jail and prison construction moratorium as well as primary care takers diversion, knowing that it's a measure to stop the flow of women and other caretakers into incarceration. I need to commemorate that six years ago, many of us were together for yet another judiciary committee hearing in a much larger room and a colder one at that. Formerly incarcerated mothers and daughters of incarcerated parents had led organizing for two consecutive sessions to pass the primary caretaker's alternative sentencing law, and at that particular hearing, women waited more than eight hours before they were called upon to share their pain and trauma for the countless time the irreparable harm their family endured being separated by incarceration, the precious and irreplaceable time that they can never get back with their loved ones and division of a different way forward. A Commonwealth will prioritize health and healing over punishment and family and community connection instead of incarceration. The legislative body passed primary caretakers as part of the landmark criminal justice reform act in 2018, thank you so much for leading on that, and because of this statute, parents convicted of transgressions have the opportunity to file motions, asking the court for an alternative community-based sentence so they can be held3458 accountable while continuing to parent their children in the community.
A primary caretaker success story, I can share among several is a sister that was convicted of a drug3472 related transgression due to, what her partner was doing in3476 her home. She was, sort of swept up in that, and instead of doing quite a long sentence of incarceration where her son would have been in high school when she got out, she did community service with families for justice as healing. She's working, she's parenting her gorgeous son, and she's safe and successful in the community, we should be doing this all the time for mothers and caretakers. Now, you know, like so many other parts of the CJRA, we have an implementation issue, right? We can continue to do better. So, the judiciary committee has an opportunity to build upon the success of primary caretakers the current statute by passing, S 1049, which would do three key things. One, expand the definition of primary caretakers to include active and loving parents that really reflect the reality of many more families lives as well as caretakers3522 of sick and disabled family members, it would offer the opportunity for pretrial diversion for primary caretakers before we even get to the decision-making point of conviction, and, importantly, it extends that opportunity for pretrial diversion to pregnant people. The Commonwealth fails to collect reliable data about diversion in our state, but we know from national research that there's actually outrageous racial disparities at the decision-making point of diversion, and that white people are far more likely to be offered diversion than black and brown people in similar circumstances.
So, passing S 1049 can help codify what should be an essential practice of racial and gender justice diverting people away from a biased and overburdened criminal legal system into the services and support that they need to heal and advance their family's lives. I know I'm overtime because I shared the significant history that led to this moment but I just want to name very clearly that while the public only tends to hear about the most extreme allegations that actually tens of thousands of people are prosecuted in Massachusetts every single year, last year alone, the Commonwealth filed over 4000 shoplifting charges, more than 4500 drug possession charges, 1362 intent to distribute charges and over 1100 misdemeanor assault charges, which are most often the result of conflict or arguments rather than physical harm. These are the thousands of cases where people's lives are totally disrupted by years of pretrial hearings going back and forth to court, half of it to get child care, half of it to time off of work, or3612 if you have an open case and you don't have a job, you can't get one. These are all the times where we should be using diversion, and passing this law would allow that to happen. That helps us shift from the punishment approach to public health and real safety and well-being for all of us, not to mention the fact that while we're considering building a $50,000,000 women's prison that includes pretrial women from Middlesex County who could all be home fighting their case, these are the tools that we can use to get there. So, thank you so much.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER - SB 1049 - Hi, thank you all for being here today. I know you've had a very long day as have many of us, so thank you for being and staying here. I just want to observe that there were many people in the3666 room today who saw people on the screen that they thought that they would die with. I saw people on the screen, pretty much for 10 years and seeing the move is just touching. I just want to state that as a disabled adult, caretaking is a really important part of my life planning. Just a few days ago, I learned of another young disabled Bostonian who's being pushed by her insurance into a group home. I believe that people should always be in the community with their families whenever. The research is clear when incarcerated people have strong community ties, we experience less recidivism and less data transitions. The constitution is deeply destabilizing to entire families, and I'd like to speak for a3718 moment about some of my experiences being prosecuted for a minor crime. I thought that I could handle it when just one of my but the nuances were scheduled on the day when I would be alone. I sat for hours on hard seats that made my legs numb, the court room was barge intimidating. It was hard to hear, and that I understand the good procedure that I've done the average person, I barely understood when my name was called. I wanted to explain why I was thinking about it was political but harm to no one, the way I barely met a municipal client.
My crimes were minor, and eventually I was popped up for more than six months of prosecution and four appearances in six months. When I went to this, it was absolutely never a chance that I would spend time in jail or even find one, like a couple hundred dollars. Everyone, you, including the DA that I was headed towards pre childhood trial diversion and probation. My experience is felt the performer They were still very scary, exhausting, and disables up, destabilized. I was fighting to accept consequences for breaking the law that I had to wait, and I was so lucky at this time to be home with my loved ones. Each appearance is dissolved by and convection I tried to get other hour sized event watching the state by talk with poor people until before the judge and have their freedom denied with sentence. I cannot imagine whether the gun liked her, but I'm sorry, me from my family, let alone children, unable to move them with their handsets, for the founding appearances, you have a quick evening. I love jobs as my job, my housing, my organizing, my relationships, because there was financial and physical health, and ultimately, we believe it may fit in the community, which was that I need to have punished other people. Please do not punish children and to see if adults, but their caretakers are prosecution. This is why my caretakers are advancing on this legislation3831 and I have the third list of Bills that I support, including joint venture, second look, treatment, nonresidential support. Thank you very much for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Betsy Chase.
BETSY CHASE - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1049 - Hello to the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm here today to speak in support of the primary caretaker's legislation. I also want to say that I'm in support of the joint legislation, the second chance, raise the age, the not letting cops lie to children Bill. I think that primary caretakers are so important because as many other peoples have pointed out, family members shouldn't be punished and destabilized when someone who cares for them makes a bad choice.3885 It's very often a crime of poverty, but whatever it is, there are so many cases where locking people up just sets off a chain reaction that puts their kids on the cradle to prison pipeline, it puts their family into deeper poverty, it just doesn't make sense to be locking people up. In very many cases, what they just need is a little bit of support. It's a huge waste of humanity, it's a huge waste of money, it's a huge waste of children's potentials, it's a huge waste of family cohesion and community strength to be locking people up trivialities, which is something that we do every day. And before we lock them up, as Eli was saying, we make them go to court month after month after month, after month, arrange childcare, arrange transportation, go and sit there for hours, just so they can pick a new date and tell you to come back next month. Our system is brutal and cruel, and we should stop dragging people through it at the expense of their families. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Michaela Kaplan.
SPEAKER25 - Hi.
MICHAELA CAPLAN - T'RUAH - SB 1049 - HB 3955 - HB 45 - My name is Mikaela Kaplan, and I'm here to testify in support of S 1049, an act relative to diversion for primary caretakers. I'm a lifelong Massachusetts resident and an organizer for T'ruah. There has been a call for human rights, which represents over 200 rabbis and canters in Massachusetts. Our Massachusetts cluster alongside dozens, as Mallory mentioned, 90 other statewide organizations, is firmly committed to the passage of primary caretaker's diversion. We've had over 5000 Rabbi and Canters take action in support of this Bill alongside other related efforts to decarcerate the Commonwealth and pass the moratorium as well. There are many reasons to which clergy and community support diversion from conviction and incarceration for pregnant people, family caregivers and parents. Many people in the Jewish community, myself included, are living with intergenerational effects of4018 forced family separation. We know viscerally4020 that the trauma of separating loved ones, especially loved ones who depend on each other for survival, ripples down generations and across communities. The Commonwealth must do everything in its power to keep relationships of care intact.
Besides our communities lived experiences, Jewish values, and spiritual concepts lead T'ruah clergy to support this legislation. Jewish texts, and liturgy frequently references the primacy of family and care seeking obligations. In addition, a foundational tenant of Judaism is to Shuba, which is the opportunity to atone, learn from, and grow from missteps. The process of Shuba happens within community and through relationship, not through with operation and punishment. Unnecessary convictions and harrowing effects of4069 criminal records are in direct opposition to these values. We know that any contact with a criminal legal system creates steep barriers to employment, housing, and other critical resources. We also know that diversion is currently the only decision-making point of the4084 criminal legal system where white people4086 are overrepresented. Primary caretakers’4088 diversion will give more people an opportunity to4090 heal, take care of their families, and build healthy communities while also advancing racial and gender justice. To that end, we're also supporting other legislative efforts aimed at reducing harsh sentencing practices, the fuel Mass incarceration, and extreme racial disparities, Massachusetts, including many of the Bills we heard today, like H 45 and H 3955. Please report these Bills in addition to primary caretakers’ diversion out of committee with a favorable vote.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thanks for your testimony.
Patiana Rodriguez.
SPEAKER15 - She has to leave the call.
SPEAKER26 - Okay. Great.
SPEAKER1 - Moving to house 3922 and act preventing false confessions. We have a panel, Radha, not Rajan and Mark Loewe, Loeweys?
RADHA NATARAJAN - NEW ENGLAND INNOCENCE PROJECT - HB 3922 - HB 1649 - HB 3955 - Good evening. My name is Radha Natarajan, I am the executive director of the New England innocence project, and I want to start by thanking this committee for considering my words on H 3922, an act to prevent false confessions. For the last eight years, I have had a front row seat to what it takes to overturn a conviction in Massachusetts. It can sometimes take decades to correct even one wrongful conviction during which time the person loses their freedom as well as family members, health, and so much more. With this Bill, you have the opportunity to prevent one of the leading causes of wrongful conviction, and you have the ability to prevent these traumas at a systemic level. In Massachusetts, approximately one out of every 15 exonerations includes a person confessing to a crime they did not commit. But even these alarming numbers do not tell the whole story because when someone falsely confesses, it becomes that much more difficult to correct those wrongful convictions and for that4207 person to be officially exonerated, that's what happened to Michael Cifizari. Michael, an adult who suffered from mental illness was wrongfully convicted of the murder of his great aunt in Milford. Based on an unrecorded false confession he gave when he was hungry and4225 sleep deprived. When Michael went to trial, he argued to the jury that his confession was false. Nevertheless, he was convicted of murder and given a life sentence. Many years later, I had the privilege to represent his brother, Gary Cifizari, whose own wrongful conviction was actually brought about because of Michael's coerced confession.
DNA testing proved that neither Michael nor Gary committed the murder, but those results came too late for Michael who had sadly died in prison after he served 20 years for a crime he did not commit. Michael's wrongful incarceration and conviction is not counted4263 in the exoneration numbers, but let it be counted by all of you when thinking about the importance of this Bill. Deception is a key reason why people confess to a crime they did not commit and there are many factors that can make people more susceptible to falsely confessing. Through deception, age, cognitive impairment, mental illness, and things like hunger and sleep deprivation and many of these are lifelong and go well beyond the age of 18. False confessions virtually guarantee a wrongful conviction, that's especially true where the statements are made or the deceptive tactics are used and they're not recorded. Recording interrogations is actually necessary to uncover those false confessions. Thankfully, since the SJC's decision in 2004, many police departments in the Commonwealth are already doing this best practice, but not all. With this Bill, Massachusetts can be a leader on this issue, and we urge you to report this Bill favorably. I also want to express the New England innocence project's strong support for H 1649 regarding testifying informants, another leading cause of wrongful convictions, as well as H 3955, which provides incarcerated people a second look for their sentences. The vast majority of our clients who were given sentences of life without the possibility of parole were deemed the most dangerous before they were proven innocent and that is proof that cases and sentences must be revisited to ensure justice. Thank you for your time and consideration.
MARK REYES - LOEVY & LOEVY - HB 3922 - Thank you for having us here to testify today. My name is Mark, I handle these kind of cases on the other end than, the innocence project does. I'm the Boston based Attorney for Loevy and Loevy, we're a civil rights law firm, we sue police officers, we sue governments for wrongful convictions. Within the past year, within the Commonwealth, four people that we've represented, who spent over 100 years wrongfully imprisoned, we have both settled and gotten verdicts of over $55,000,000 for those people. To be clear, false confessions are a huge part of the work that we do. I've handled them across the country, and4398 I guess what I'm asking the committee to do and what I'm asking the legislature to do is to put us out of business here because that's always been our goal as a civil rights firm is to to not have to do this work. So we want police officers to do the the job right. I'm going to give you an example. I represent Gary Cifizari and Radha talked4418 to you about Gary, but I also represent Victor Rosario, and we settled his case against the city of Lowell. He's actually a constituent of one of the panel members here, he was wrongly convicted of arson from 1982, an arson that never happened. Modern fire scientists have looked at the evidence, and they said, there's not one shred of evidence of arson but there was an arson squad in Lowell, and lo and behold, they were going to find arson here. Here's the thing about false confessions; it's not from good police work, false confessions are the lazy way to do it.
Every expert that I've ever had in any litigation says, here's what to do for an investigation; you look at the evidence, you see where it leads. What you don't do is you don't pick out your suspect at the beginning and build a case around it. When you lie to people to get them to confess, that is because you have tunnel vision, this is the person who did it, I'm going to make the person confess. For Victor Rosario, they held him overnight, he signed his confession at 5:00 in the morning. They lied and said somebody saw you throwing something into the building, they lied and said if you sign this piece of paper, which by the way was in English and wasn't read to him, we're going to let you go. What did he do at 5:00 in the morning after being worn down? He signed the confession. He fought for 32 years for his innocence, we were lucky enough to represent him, and Lowell had to pay a price for it. But Victor paid a bigger price, 32 years of his life, inability to live. So we can do better in the Commonwealth, I will tell you we have done better here, we've recognized the science about identifications, that's now part of our standard jury instruction that we do here. So I guess what I would like is for, again, we do this nationally, I would like Massachusetts to be a leader, I would like us to find ways so that we can put my firm out of business here. I love the work that I do, I don't want to stop doing it, but I also don't want to be representing people who have been wrongfully imprisoned, because their lives have been ruined by the time I get to them. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER17 - Thank you
SPEAKER1 - for your testimony. Any questions? No. Cigna. Thank you. Next panel is virtual Laurie Roberts and Mac Mark Fallon?
We have sorry. I see you. Go go ahead when you're ready.
So we can't hear you.
Cannot hear we cannot hear you, Lori.
SPEAKER21 - Is there
SPEAKER1 - something on our end that with Laurie?
Mark, are you able to go?
SPEAKER29 - If you could hear me, I am.
SPEAKER1 - We can hear you. So go ahead.
MARK FALLON - JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE - HB 3922 - My name is Mark Fallon, I'm testifying in support of House Bill 3922 to prevent false confessions and to improve the practice of policing with the use of science based methods of the policing. I'm currently a visiting scholar at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Co founder of Project Alethia, a center established to bridge the gap between the science and practice of interrogation. I have previously served as the interim executive director of the Center for Ethics and the rule of law at the University of Pennsylvania and I'm the author of the book, unjust probable means, and co editor of the book's interrogation and torture, integrating efficacy with law and morality, and interviewing interrogation, a review of interrogation research and practice since World War 2. As way of background, I spent 31 years in federal law enforcement primarily as a special agent with the naval criminal investigative service. I was the NCIS deputy assistant director for counter terrorism. I have also served within the Department of Homeland Security as the assistant director for training of the Federal Enforcement Training Center, also known as Flexi. Following the September 9/11 attacks, I was appointed as the chief investigator for the military commissions process. Since 2016, I have been serving as an interrogation expert for the Pentagon's military commission defense organization.
In June, I testified about interrogation practices in Guantanamo and leadership challenges I faced trying to bring terrorist to justice who were subjected to interrogational abuses. I am the immediate past chair of the International Association chiefs of police impact section, as well as the high value detainee interrogation group research committee known as the HIGG. Since its inception after president Obama issued executive order 13491 on ensuring lawful interrogation, over 200 evidence based research projects have been conducted with over 100 peer review papers being published. The body of research into science based methods of interrogation shows that rapport based approaches, not deception, are far superior to coercive and deceptive practices which are known to produce false confessions. Agencies are evolving to these science based methods to improve their practice. When I became director of the NCS Training Academy in 2005, we were using coercive interrogation of practice, they are no more. NCS has evolved and only use science based methods now, reforms are underway. When I became the assistant director, Flexi, in 2008, we were instructing coercive methods and interrogation training to federal law enforcement officers, they do know more. Flexi has involved and reforms are underway. I urge Massachusetts law enforcement agencies and this committee to embrace reforms and evolve to science based methods by rejecting deception and interrogation and4788 evolve to effective interviewing to improve the practice of policing and support HB 3922. You would not issue a handgun that frequently misfires and hits unintended targets, I urge you not to do so with interrogations. Policing with virtue is a step closer towards community embrace police. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thanks for your testimony. Miss Roberts, we'll try you again and see if we can hear you this time.
SPEAKER30 - Hi. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - We can. Yes.
SPEAKER30 - Perfect.
LAURIE ROBERTS - THE INNOCENCE PROJECT - HB 3922 - HB 1756 - Thank you so much. My name is Laurie Roberts, I'm representing the innocence project, which works to free wrongfully convicted folks here in support of H 3922 and H 1756. Reviewing all known wrongful convictions nationwide, there continues to be an issue judges and juries not identifying and excluding false confessions,4836 which are one of the most frequent contributing factors to wrongful convictions present in nearly 1/3 of all DNA exonerations nationwide, and the most common factor in homicide convictions. When a suspect confesses to a crime, that evidence is extremely persuasive to fact finders, enough to overpower even DNA evidence because it is so hard to imagine someone confessing to a serious crime that they didn't commit, that's how false confessions lead to wrongful convictions and innocent people in prison. So how do we prevent that? H 3922 limits the use of deceptive interrogation tactics, which means lying about the existence or strength of evidence, false promises of leniency, minimization, these are tactics that court's national law enforcement organizations, officer training agencies, interrogation researchers, and even high value detaining interrogators have all advocated against because of the risk they pose in producing false confessions, and the proven reliability of other techniques. We have a better mouse trap, so that's why since just 2021, nine States from Illinois to Utah have passed laws barring the use of these techniques in juvenile interrogations and none of those states have gone backwards or undone those laws. But Massachusetts should go further by recognizing that susceptibility to false confession in the face of law enforcement deception does not disappear when someone turns 18. Perfectly rational and mentally capable adults can and have falsely confessed, and Massachusetts has an opportunity to protect those innocent people as well as the victims of crime who are not served when the wrong person is behind bars.
In fact, we know that 2/3 of all false professors nationwide were over the age of 18. So, it's also important4938 to emphasize that we know that this does not undermine police investigations, the United Kingdom prohibited deception against kids and adults decades ago. Instead of a hamstringing investigators, it encouraged rigorous, transparent police work, which ultimately serves the state's dual responsibility of both public safety and due process. The Bill works like this statements obtained through deceptive tactics are inadmissible as evidence unless the state can show that the statement was voluntary and reliable, which means judges are not just determining whether a statement was made freely and willingly, but whether the contents of the statement actually makes sense with the rest of the evidence and the facts of the case. This is the standard for admitting eyewitness testimony, dobber evidence, and forensic expert testimony, and it should be the standard for admitting confession evidence in Massachusetts. I'll also note that the Bill puts into statute a recommendation from the Massachusetts SJC from a 2004 decision to require the electronic recording of interrogations, which is already practiced in 29 other states and DC and the federal government. As far as we know, is best practice in the majority law enforcement agencies around the Commonwealth, but it should be enshrined into law. I am out of time, but I just want to say that we also have a number of issue experts, including representatives from district attorneys offices in states where this is already law, unfortunately, I'm not sure if they've been able to stay online, but we absolutely hope that you can hear from them either through written testimony and, later in person as well. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. And, yes, I encourage you to submit written testimony from those folks as well. Thank you. Vern Pearson.
Michelle, mekiani.
Haley Haley Cleary.
SPEAKER31 - Hello. Good evening. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - Yes. Go right ahead.
SPEAKER31 - Wonderful. Thank you. Hello from Virginia.
HAYLEY CLEARY - VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY - HB 3922 - My name is Haley Cleary, I'm an associate professor of criminal justice and public policy at Virginia Commonwealth University. I'm a developmental psychologist by training, so my area of expertise is on adolescent, decision making in legal context with a particular emphasis on interviewing, interrogation and false confessions. I've been listening to the hearing today with a brief exception when I had to go to class, and I was very heartened to hear the earlier testimony around the raise the age Bill, having to do with adolescent brain development and the continuation of that process that extends into the mid-20s. I'm heartened by that because it tells me that the committee values, science and is listening to the science, that is relevant to the issues of the day. So I'd like to highlight a few aspects of the social science on interrogation that I hope will help you in your decision making around, HB 3922. So, my research shows and other research shows that actually most people don't know that police are allowed to lie during interrogations, not most children, most people that includes adults and so that really disrupts the playing field if police are allowed to use deception and people aren't aware of that when they walk into the room. Research shows that people's perceptions of the strength of evidence against them is an extraordinarily powerful driver of their decision making.
So when you put these pieces of science together, the fact that folks don't know a police can lie, the police legally can lie, and that perception of the weight of evidence weigh so heavily on decision making, it's no surprise that we see false confessions. And, yes, we see them disproportionately from young people, but we also see them from emerging adults, from adults, including those who don't have any known cognitive impairments or mental illness. So this is a widespread problem, and I've testified for a number of those deception Bills that Ms. Roberts mentioned in other states that focused on youth, but the science is there to support a ban on deception for adult suspects as well. So the last thing that I'll leave you with is, research also shows that virtually all youth and that the vast majority of adults are interrogated without support. We know that parents are not adequate substitutes for ensuring their children understand their rights and advising their children reasonably when it comes to making important legal decisions. So I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you virtually today, and, I'd love to answer any questions you have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions? Hearing none. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Now we're gonna go to Aaron Stewart, online.
Miss Stewart?
SPEAKER32 - Hi. Thank you so much.
ERIN STEWART - CITIZENS FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE - HB 1650 - HB 1756 - SB 954 - Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and members of the committee, my name is Erin Stewart, and I am testifying on behalf of5264 citizens for juvenile justice in support of H 1650, H 1756, and S 954 that bring much needed protection for children who have encounters with law enforcement, our executive director has also submitted written testimony for your consideration. In the seminal 2011 US Supreme Court decision, JDB, V North Carolina, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, it is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the5298 same circumstances would feel free to leave. This reality places5302 young people at a heightened disadvantage when being interrogated by law enforcement5306 and establishes the importance of ensuring that legal counsel is present with them to ensure an understanding of their rights. Research establishes the vulnerability of young people during interrogations. For example, only one out of every five young people understand their Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the fact that anything they say can be used against them. 2/3 of youth incorrectly believe that they will be penalized for exercising their right to remain silent. Young people wave their Miranda rights nearly 90% of the time. Most relevant to this legislation, the least understood Miranda warning among minors is the right to consult with an attorney prior to questioning.
Adolescents are less capable of assessing risk, understanding, and weighing consequences and perceiving deceit and manipulation and withstanding coercion, especially in high stress situations, including interrogations. This heightened vulnerability leads to damaging consequences. Adolescents are two to three times more likely to falsely confess than adults. Black youth are more than four times as likely to experience a custodial arrest as their white peers, and Latino youth are almost three times more likely experience a custodial arrest than their white peers, meaning that they have a disproportionate likelihood of facing law enforcement interrogation and thus a need of these protections. H 1650 addresses this need to protect the constitutional rights of young people by requiring video taping and having an attorney present at reading of Miranda rights and during police interrogations when a youth has a pending felony charge. This Bill ensures that a young person's ability to have their rights protected by an attorney isn't conditioned on their socioeconomic background by providing access to a public defender if they cannot afford an attorney. H 1756 further provides to reduce false confessions by young people by prohibiting deceptive tactics and interrogations. Central to the ideas of fairness and justice are ensuring that young people in the Commonwealth have their constitutional rights protected. I'm open for questions, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Now we're moving on to senate 11 29 in Asheville to5451 protecting the residents of the Commonwealth from5453 dangerous persons. I have a panel, Sarah Malley, Tedra Noonan and Tara Crowdo.
If some are virtual. I don't know if any are available.
Sarah Malley.
If some are virtual. I don't know if any are available.
Sarah Malley.
SPEAKER10 - Okay.
SPEAKER1 - Next up, virtually, I have someone named Joe.
No. Kayla Aton.
SPEAKER10 - Okay.
SPEAKER1 - Next, moving to house 1802 and act improving juvenile justice data collection, Jonathan Tetherly.
SPEAKER33 - Yeah. Too many too many handles on this thing.
JONATHAN TETHERLY - SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND CONFERENCE OF THE UCC - HB 1802 - SB 931 - HB 3955 - Yes. I am Reverend Jonathan Tetherly, of Chicopee, Chair of the actual justice task team in the Southern New England United Church of Christ, and on behalf of our committee, I'm testifying on S 931, H 1802, an act improving juvenile justice data collection. I want to thank, Senator Creem for speaking on her Bill earlier, and I want to thank all of you for enduring this very long session, that's what you get for being on the judiciary committee, I guess. I'm not going to be very eloquent on this, but I think this is an important issue. We support the legislation because there is much critical information that's not available to5578 anyone in the Commonwealth thus hindering improving effectiveness and fairness and decisions made regarding youthful offenders. Decisions that will have a major impact on youth, their families and their communities. What we don't know, and we should be able to find out, but cannot, is as follows; how many LGBTQ youth are charged with committing a crime and what is their experience in the criminal legal system? The only legal services agency that keeps any records of who they are is the DYS. How do DAs and judges use their power diversion regarding our youth?
Is that power used consistently by offices of the Commonwealth across Massachusetts and what criteria are used to decide whether to divert a youth from the juvenile justice system to an informal solution? And is this done equitably along racial and sexual orientation lines? Of those youth facing the criminal legal system, how many are given adult sentences? Is that done fairly and appropriately? And why does the court system not publicly report the information about this that they already have? Finally, our young people and the public better off through the involvement of young people with a legal system. Massachusetts has not kept track of education, housing, health, and recidivism for the 96% of youth in juvenile court5678 who are not committed to the DYS. All of us must be concerned with all of our Massachusetts youth and our future, if their involvement with the criminal legal system is a mystery, then our directions for improvement to produce better outcomes for them, and therefore, all of us is uncertain and potentially ineffective. Please report favorably out of committee an act improving juvenile justice data collection. Also, we support S 3955 and the elimination of, the SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I'm out of I'm out of breath. You know, elimination of the whole issue of joint venture.
SPEAKER33 - Thank you. Alright. Good. Thank
SPEAKER1 - you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Thanks for coming in today. Also on this bill, we have Joshua Dankoff, I believe, virtually.
SPEAKER34 - Yes. I'm5746 here. Great. Good afternoon.5748 Let me know if you can see me.
SPEAKER1 - Yes. We can. Go right ahead.
SPEAKER34 - Wonderful. Good afternoon.
JOSHUA DANKOFF - CITIZENS FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE - HB 1802 - SB 931 - Good evening, Chair Barber, Chair Eldridge, members of the joint committee on judiciary. I'm Joshua Dankoff, director of strategic initiatives at citizens for juvenile justice. I'm testifying today in favor of an act to improve juvenile justice data collection; House 1802, Senate 931. So, this Bill would require the collection and reporting of data at major decision points in the juvenile justice system. Importantly, broken down by key demographics, age, gender, identity, sexual orientation, and type of offense. This Bill really tries to get us closer to understanding just what's happening in the juvenile justice system, whether it's working, whether it's fair and, of course, how we can make it better. The legislature has made important investments and reforms in the juvenile system but without adequate data collection reporting, the debates on policies and funding, we can't really be informed as the basic facts of how system is operating. Look, I love data, and I know that you all love data, you wouldn't be in these jobs if you didn't, and our system, actors and our system leaders, they love data too. I spent four years staffing a committee of heads of agencies here in Massachusetts a precursor to the general5828 justice policy and data board, but the number of times that our systems5832 leaders had questions that they were discussing together but couldn't answer those questions because of inability of the data system to be able to answer those questions was shocking and certainly very frustrating to myself and to them.
At times, you have certain agencies that do have stronger data systems but overall, system wide, you can't track what's happening from one young person, from the beginning all the way through, and you can't tell a story of what's happening in terms of demographic differences between white youth and youth of color as well. So, I do want to acknowledge that the capacity to gather and collect the data has improved here in Massachusetts over the last few years. The 2018 criminal justice reform law did create the juvenile justice policy and data board. We heard from Melissa Thread Gill earlier who helped staff that, and because of that law and because of the work of the legislature, we do know more than we did five years ago. But we're not done, and I hope that you're not done in doing this, and this Bill can help to plug some of those gaps. We'll be submitting written testimony in favor of this Bill as well. But just to note that, some of the things we don't know include diversion and importantly sentencing and prosecution statistics. So, in sum, I just want to reiterate the Massachusetts remain sadly an outlier in the lack of availability of data and, we want to be able to say to our colleagues nationally, we're proud not just of some of the system elements, but of the data and our ability to report that out in research. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Are there any questions? Seeing none. Thank you.
Now moving to house 1710 and acts promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults. Up first, we have Deltonaaguncalls.
SPEAKER17 - Now it's good evening.
DULCINEIA GONCALVES - COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good evening, Chair Eldridge,5967 and Vice Chair, Barber, and members of the joint committee on judiciary. My name is Dulcineia Goncalves, and I'm the Deputy Chief Council of the Youth Advocacy Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services. I'm here to testify in support of House Bill 1710 and Senate Bill 942. I have worked in the juvenile legal system for over 18 years, 16 of those representing young people in courts in Massachusetts in the last two years as deputy chief counsel overseeing juvenile defense in Massachusetts. There is no6000 question that the Massachusetts juvenile6002 courts are best equipped to have jurisdiction of emerging adults brought before the legal system. The juvenile court has the preexisting structure and capacity to manage this group of young people. We already have a functioning nationally recognized juvenile legal system that promotes positive6021 youth development. Our system is designed to provide individualized developmentally appropriate services for young people. It is a system that has more experience and better results than the adult’s system in promoting pro social development of young people, and it is a system that is already working successfully with young women and men 18 to 21 years old in a variety of respects. CPCS has a specially trained juvenile bar of staff attorneys and par advocates ready and willing to take the cases. CPCS also has one of the use statewide juvenile defender divisions in the country. Our use of traditional zealous advocacy combined with same positive youth development framework used by both DYS and probation has been lauded nationally.
It is not an overstatement to say that Massachusetts has set the standard for developmentally appropriate representation in juvenile court. There's no longer the question about whether a young person's brain is still developing into their mid-20s. Given what the brain science has taught us, it is clear that young adolescent should be under the jurisdiction of juvenile court rather than the adult criminal system. Another added benefit of raising the age is that emerging adults will have significantly better access to education. The relationship between education and recidivism is well documented. Ensuring young people who are incarcerated are able to complete high school, particularly young people with disabilities, is critical not only for community safety, as6120 well as reducing the racial disparities that exist in the system. Unfortunately, as outlined in CFJJ's report, school out, education in the adult correction system is woefully inadequate. There are virtually no opportunities for general education students to work towards their high school diploma and6138 the6138 education, that6140 special education students should be receiving are not met, and systematically, they're denied these services. In contrast, Youth and DYS have the ability to attend school programs and receive supports. I know that my time is up, I would ask the committee to favorably vote this Bill as well as the other juvenile justice Bills that have been supported by CPCS today. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony.
Next, we have Gavi Wolf. Don't don't think it's here. Okay. Brianna Silva?
Brianna?
Next, we have a panel, Miguel Syntron, Frado Estvez,6191 Nini Gomez.
Miguel I know I know it's been a long day, but, yeah, Miguel Frado Nini
SPEAKER35 - maybe right here. Maybe here.
SPEAKER26 - Sorry. Wow. Sorry, miss. It's still tight. Good afternoon. Oh, the night the night now.
SPEAKER1 - Go ahead. Thank you.
SPEAKER36 - Alright.
GREGG CROTEAU - UTEC - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good evening. My name is Greg from UTEC, and I am proud to be alongside my distinguished friends here at UTEC. So, thank you again for taking the opportunity to hear us. You probably know a bit about UTEC, so we work in the Merrimack Valley, we serve young adults that are justice involved, and all of them come to us looking for that chance. For this Bill, we stand in support of raising the age for a number of reasons. I think for foremost, we believe in the idea of a clean slate for everyone and we also believe in the idea of the Commonwealth having the best chance forward to have true public safety, and we believe firmly that this Bill does both of that. You know, I think this legislation, you know, we will hear more about it in terms of the science behind it, and I know you're familiar with that, I would just say ONE point that stands out for myself is the fact that in this Bill, you're guaranteed the education as opposed to the discretion of depending on which county jail or which prison you might end up in, you are guaranteed education. By guaranteeing that education, we believe you're also guaranteeing the ability for recidivism to go down in our communities. We know that recidivism is the highest amongst 18-to-25-year-old, and if we can guarantee that education, the support services, we believe we can also guarantee better public safety data as well. So, I'll be brief, but I just would like to say that the work of our young adults and staff who work alongside them, many of them with similar lived experience makes us firmly believe in the idea that no one should ever be seen, by the one thing that maybe they've done that's worst in their life. We firmly believe in that concept for everyone, and we're here today to be able to share that.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I'd like to share, the time now to my distinguished colleagues who can talk about the change they're making and the way they had change makers. Mary?
SPEAKER26 - Yeah. Sir. Hi.
MARY GOMEZ - UTEC - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good afternoon. Dear members of the judiciary committee, my name is Mary Gomez, but I go by Nini. I'm here to testify in support of H 1710, S 942, an act to promote safety and better outcomes for young adults known as raised the age. Before I start, I want to share with you that I'm a young adult of UTEC who has now gotten her life in order, or at least I'm trying to get on the right path. I'm working on my high set right now as we speak, I'm also a part of organizing an advocacy group, which is why I'm here with you today in support of raising the age of juvenile convictions from 18 to 21. When I was younger, I made many mistakes, a few of them have gotten me into places I did not want to be in. I caught my first case when I was 18, and then I caught two other cases in6410 my6410 early 20s or maybe before that. I've been incarcerated three times since my 18th birthday, and I don't wish that experience on anyone. Right now, I'm 25 years of age, and I feel really lucky to have the opportunity that I have today to go to work, to go to school, and to be a part of UTEC. Looking back, I really needed a chance as a young adult to develop my social emotional skills, and I really just need to support, not a harsh prison sentence. There's a lot more of my story that I can share, but I'm still only 25 and I've been at prison three times. It's a place I don't want to go back to, and I hope that moving forward, other young adults can get the opportunity that they need. Raising the age allows for learning and growth rather than recidivism. It is no surprise that catching a charge and having that on record severely impacts your life going forward. There is no need for mistakes made in youth to hinder the growth that can be made after. Raising the age creates a chance to learn and on choices made in youth and growth for them. Thank you for your time, I hope that you'll move this legislation favorably out of our committee. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER33 - So right.
SPEAKER37 - Yes. My voice is kinda gone.
MARCUS ESTEVEZ - UTEC - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good evening, guys. Name is Marcus Estevez, but I go as Fredo, and I'm here to testify in support of H 1710, S 942, an act to promote safety and better outcomes for young adults known as raise the age. It should be to 21 because 18-year-old are still trying to figure things out. For example, I was on the wrong path, I was gang involved at 13 years6516 old, after many years6518 of attending more funerals than birthdays, and after seeing many of my friends, including my brother get tried and charged as adults, I decided to take ahold of my life. Right now, I'm 25, and this is my second time back at UTEC, and I could say, I have successfully turned my life around. Since being at UTEC, I've been involved with organizing and the organizing crew coming up to the state house and working on local issues. Now, as I'm moving on from programming, I will be working at Thrive, which is a nonprofit that focuses on reentry services. I have worked hard, and I'm ready to give back to my community. UTEC believed in me, and if a place like UTEC that invests in emerging adults did not exist, I probably wouldn't be here with you all today. I believe in young people, and I think we deserve a chance or even multiple opportunities at getting things right. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about the friends I've lost to the streets or to the justice system. Investing in raising the age for juvenile convictions is not just an investment in young people, it's an investment in the future and health for our communities. Thank you for the support. I hope you may move this Bill favorably out of committee. Thank you.
CHARLES ROSARIO - UTEC - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good evening, esteemed members of the judiciary committee. My name is Charles Rosario, and I'm here to testify in support of House Bill 1710, Senate Bill 942, an act to promote safety and better outcomes from young adults, better known as raise the age. I am here in support of raising the age for juvenile conviction from 18 to 21 because no young adult should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. As someone who has mentored emerging adults from the ages of 18 to 25 in the brave unit in MCI Concord, I was able to witness firsthand just how pro found a positive impact is when we adequately invest in the rehabilitation of this particular age group. I have seen tremendous improvements in young men's disposition towards education, towards career development, towards fatherhood, and perhaps most importantly, towards their own self confidence and self-worth when giving a space to invest in themselves along with the necessary tools to do so. These are things that increase the young adults’ chances of success when they return to society, which in turn improves public safety and the quality of life, not just for themselves, but for society as a whole. I was also incarcerated at a young age, and I would like to point out that my mentality wasn't much different at 21 when I committed the crime that got me sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole as it was when I was a juvenile committed to the department of youth services.
It wasn't until I was about 24, 25, or 26, that I was able to begin the process of truly understanding the breadth of impact that my actions have had on my life and on those of so many others. It took a certain level of maturity for me to appreciate it and to commit myself to repairing those harms. As I continued to grow and mature, I continued to invest in my rehabilitation, and managed to become selected to be a mentor in the first ever young father's program in the nation. I managed to become a certified restorative justice facilitator and also obtain a bachelor's degree with Magna Cumlade honors from Emerson College. I am now currently working with young adults out here in the community as part of UTEC continuing the work that I started while I was in6738 prison, but I was only able to do that6740 because I was afforded the opportunity to redeem myself and turn my life around and come back out into the community due to my sense and structure as prescribed by law. For those 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old young adults who do not have the same opportunity due to the structure of their sentences, my aim is to highlight the redeeming quality that they possess, a quality that I myself have demonstrated through my own journey of personal growth and development during my incarceration. I believe that these young adults who have been wrongly deemed irredeemable in the eyes of the justice system deserve a second chance because if I was able to find redemption and change my life for the better after going to prison with a life sentence at the age of 21, then those that are 18, 19, and 20 years old are also able to do so. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Oh, God.
SPEAKER39 - How do I follow that up for
Alright.
VINCENT LIFANG - UTEC - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good evening members of the judicial committee. My name is Vincent Maisha Lifang and I am here to support H 1710, S 942, an act to promote safety and better outcomes for a young adult better known as raise the age. I am6821 here to support raise for age for juvenile convictions from 18 to 21 because this Bill would affect my life and many people that I've worked with. I was convicted in 1998 for first degree murder for a choice that I made when I was 17 years old. While I was incarcerated, I took the opportunity to work on myself, I went to many self-help groups and sat in numerous restorative circles, and in this time, I was able to face my own traumas and work on many of my internal battles. After 21 years of incarceration, I have now been home five years and this is all due to a6868 ruling that came down in the United States Supreme Court that deemed it inhumane to send these juveniles to lifetime parole. I've worked so hard to turn my whole life around, and currently, I have dedicated myself to repairing the harm I once was responsible for for my community. Today, I work for6889 UTEC, and I am the reentry manager there. My work involves going behind the walls and working with our emerging young adults and also supporting them when they come home and released from prison.
Part of that work is also going into MCI Concord to the brave unit. The brave unit is specially designed for emerging young adults that are fathers, and there is one individual by the name of Sammy Garcia who's worked so hard at his life to be different, to do what he needs to do to be a different person. A little backed up of our history is that we once rivals in different gangs, we were really didn't see that the streets, and it's good for me to go to the brave unit to be able to see him as the man he is today, but the only problem is that he's doing a lot better. I was 17 years old; he was 20 and the difference is I'm home, and he's not. I'm thinking about a lot of other people too; I'm thinking about Lonnie Walk, Ricky McGee, Wayne Grant, you know, Paul Vowel, Peter Benedict, all those guys that pretty much molded and shaped me to who I am today, right? How this Bill is going to affect them and this Bill really means a lot to me. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony and for all the work that you texted Really appreciate it.
SPEAKER35 - Thank you.
SPEAKER37 - Can I
SPEAKER40 - add something?
SPEAKER1 - Yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER4 - To to, thank you, Cheryl and Barbara. I just wanted to to, to Greg and, Nina Frredo Charles and and Vince, thank you so much for your testimony. You know, you text leadership on so many juvenile justice issues. And I know Vince, you just talked about the brave unit. So saw you and Greg yesterday at the brave unit, the 2nd anniversary of the administration, establishing this unit for young fathers. I think Charles I was at your graduation for Emerson College. So congratulations. And, I know that the US Department of Justice is coming to Utech Thursday morning to tour. So I will see you there, but thank you so much for your leadership and your patience tonight to testify, not only to tell your stories, but lifting up the the lives of other people. Thank you.
SPEAKER28 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
I also had a Miguel Syntron. Is Miguel not here on the panel? Miguel Centron? No? No. Not here? Okay. Great. Thank you. Next, we have a panel Naomi Parker and Moe.
Good evening. Hi. Hi.
NAOMI PARKER - MORE THAN WORDS - HB 1710 - SB 942 - My name is Naomi Parker, and I'm the chief advancement officer at More Than Words in Boston and Waltham. Thank you to this committee for the very long day and for bearing with all of us. I am here with my colleague, Moe, to speak in favor of an act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults, better known as raise the age. As you may know, more than words is a nonprofit social enterprise store that empowers system involved young people to take charge of their lives by taking charge for business. We see about 300 young people every year. We know books and we know youth. Our young people are involved in the foster care system, they are court involved, or homeless. These may seem like different populations of young people but they are not. It is not7159 uncommon that youth in the foster care system have their cases closed without clear transition plans and become homeless. We7165 know that nearly 50% of the homeless youth population in Massachusetts is coming right out of the foster care system. We also know that homeless youth are at a risk for offending. We know that a really high percent of the adult prison population was once in foster care. We call this the trauma to prison pipeline. Under the law, our 18 year old's are adults for the purpose of criminal prosecution.
In our work with youth every day, we see the system respond really differently to the same crimes of youth we work with, if they're 17 or over 18. I can tell you from what we see every day, the goober mistakes, the bad judgments that are made from impulsive moments, they're the same, they're no different because you've turned 18 or 19. How many 18 year old's do you know or were you? Even without trauma or compounding barriers that don't need that guidance and support well past that milestone. Youth at more than words range from 16 to 24, and we see deep change through that time range, their ability to resist impulses, make and follow long term plans. At more than words, sometimes we think we just need to get you through this period without a mistake that will derail the rest of your life, because that's what the adult criminal justice system does. It adds to trauma, it derails education, it puts up barriers to housing and work, it's no wonder it doesn't work. And don't forget who we're talking about, only 25% of the adult population is black or Latino, but 70% of young adults incarcerated in state prisons are people of color. Meanwhile, I, and the kids I grew up with, were given the benefit of the doubt, assuming we made a mistake or a bad choice while we were still growing and learning. Raising the age will help extend that benefit of the doubt, it will help us do our work better at more than words, we'll align with brain science, we'll line with documented effective diversion strategies, and it will lead to better outcomes for youth and for Massachusetts. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
It's now my pleasure to pass it over to my colleague, Moe, to share her experience and thoughts.
name
MAHOGANY MOORE - MORE THAN WORDS - HB 1710 - SB 942 - My name is Mahogany Moore, I'm 22, and I live in Georgia. When I was 13, my mother went into a very depressive state and became very abusive and neglectful towards me and my sister. People came to our house and took me into a program, not a foster home, a program. From there, I was in programs since the time I was 13 to 18. My experiences were really hard, they were also very traumatic. At 18, I was too old to be in a program, so I got kicked out. I spent four years going back and forth through independent living, homelessness, and picking up cases. My7317 cases, they came out of survival mode. I had no parents, I have no money and no living skills. I needed to survive in the world. I still had DCF at the time, but things were still happening in my life. I'm now 22, and I'm still dealing with those cases I picked up when I was 18. When I was 20, I decided I didn't want to live this life anymore. I didn't want to be a stereotype to DCF kids. I had more potential than when people told me I had, and I did what I need to do. I went back to school and got high school diploma, I got connected with more than words at 21. I knew about it earlier, and DCF had told me about it, and I had some friends that worked there but I was too scared to give it a try. I thought it was going to be another program, it wasn't until I was older and ready that I felt, you know, to really give it a try.
It wasn't what I thought it was going to be at all. It was in a good way. Working at more than words helped me learn to communicate and learn that people can make mistakes and still improve themselves. More than words has helped me want more for myself, like going to college. More than words have helped also helped me find housing and pay my first last security, and more than words have shown up with me to court and got some of my cases dismissed, but it shouldn't take more than words to do those things, they just shouldn't happen, period. It's still hard to do certain things, my job at more than words is amazing, but if I wanted to walk into a corporate job, I couldn't get it. With these cases on my record, it's hard, people don't look at me and say you're a felon. Do I look like a felon? Probably not. But, technically, I am, I've been to jail. This Bill is important to me because at the age of 18, I made some decisions, and now I'm 22, and it's affecting me. I'm a whole different person, I was practically a kid at 18, now I'm 22, and I have a whole new mindset and a whole new goals, but it's hard to accomplish things in life. I'm still going to accomplish them, but our system should be, you do something, you get in trouble, you deal with the consequences, and you move on, I shouldn't have to deal with the consequences today.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER10 - Thank
SPEAKER1 - you so much for your testimony. Really great to hear about your experience. Thank you.
Next we have a panel, Desiree Thornton, Herman, Jackson, and Gabby Sylvester. No. They're not here? Yes. Alright. Jane Tooksberry.
Chadzeman.
PACE Maconkey Junior.
PACE MCCONKIE JUNIOR - LOUIS D. BROWN PEACE INSTITUTE - HB 1495 - SB 940 - Good evening, members of the committee, and thank you for hanging here with us, and thank you, everybody who's still here. We're still here. My name is, Pace McConkie Junior, and I testifying on behalf of the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, which is a nonprofit organization that serves families and communities impacted by homicide all across the Commonwealth. I'm here testifying in favor of House Bill 1710 and Senate Bill 942, raise the age. The work of the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute is widely known for responding when life is taken due to violence, but we come to the work with a deep understanding of the causes of violence and with concrete solutions to cultivate peaceful alternatives in our communities. This is why the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute stands with the many voices calling for this important piece of juvenile justice reform here in the Commonwealth and stands with the many impressive and powerful testimonies shared today. The science shows as do the profound testimony shared today that by exposing adolescents to punitive environments like adult jails and prisons can actually increase offending, meaning that harsh punitive responses to our young people further perpetuates cycles of violence.
At the Peace Institute, we see the impacts of cycles of violence day by day. By raising the age, we would not only disrupt cycles of violence by providing system involved adolescents with the resources they need, but we would decrease crime as a whole. Massachusetts has seen a 51% reduction in juvenile crime rates since raising the age to include 17 year old's. We are calling for juvenile justice reform that places adolescents on trajectories with possibilities for peaceful alternatives. This is also why the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute endorses, House Bill 1495 and Senate Bill 940, expanding juvenile diversion eligibility for low level offenses, as well as House Bill 1756 and Senate Building 954, an act ensuring integrity and juvenile interrogations. Disrupting cycles of violence calls for a holistic remedy, providing peaceful alternatives for our young people every step of the way. At the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, we understand the pain that families have when they lose a loved one to violent crime as well as when families lose a loved one to incarceration. So often, we hear from families when they say they were too young to pass away, they were too young to lose their life student incarceration. I ask of this committee report unanimously in favor of these Bills, so that we can all move effectively forward in guiding our young people to pathways a piece. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you for your testimony.
Next, we have doctor Robert Kinshuff.
ROBERT KINSCHERFF - CENTER FOR LAW, BRAIN & BEHAVIOR - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good evening. It's a pleasure to see you again. It's been a long day,7673 and so I will try and be bullet point brief, I'm going to go off script here to try and do that. The headlines here are that there is a robust science for many of the Bills that are before you. I think some of them are relatively cosmetic but important, and some of them are strategic repositioning. I'm here to testify in a favor of the raise the age legislation as one of those strategic repositioning because I think it is a centerpiece for the opportunity of the Commonwealth to move forward in a very, very different way and to demonstrate its leadership. I'll briefly recap; I'm currently the executive director at the Center for Law, Brain and Behavior at Mass General Hospital, and over the course of my almost 40 year career, I've been in contact and working within the court system from the various early touch points of a child's life in the care and protection arena, and juvenile justice. I was subsequently the statewide director of Juvenile Court Clinic Services, Assistant Commissioner for the Department of Mental Health, and the forensic examiner for the Massachusetts parole board, so I have seen this issue across the life cycle. What I'd like to say is as far as raise the age, the science is very, very clear, it's not a complicated policy question from the perspective of the evidence. We know that handling young people as juveniles who need developmentally aligned accountability but need positive youth supports, simply gets us better public safety out comes.
If we can agree that we all in this room of whatever our perspectives, would support the well-being of all7790 Massachusetts citizens, including our children, but also the safety of the communities in which they live, this one is a no brainer. There's an age curve that culminates at about 15, 16, 17, and then begins to drop into the early 20s. If you were going to build a system to compromise adolescent development and young adult development, you would draw the line at age 18 and you would support them until they're 18, and then you7817 would be massively harsh with them, once they turned 18, and you would predictably get what the evidence would tell you, which is increased rates of recidivism and deepening criminal activity. Pragmatically, I appreciate that this is a complicated issue and7833 would require a redeployment of resources, and quite frankly, having been inside these systems for 40 years, a culture change for the way we do business. Finally, I would just like to say on the treatment, not incarceration Bill that there is good science for the elements behind it, including, most importantly, that coercion alone does not address addiction. It requires engagement and evidence based care in the way that that Bill is intended to do. Finally,7866 as an out of time, I just can't help but point out on the joint venture7870 and felony murder issue, the culture that gave us7874 that legal doctrine repealed it in its entirety in 1957, the UK has not had a felony murder joint venture doctrine for decades and their civilization has not yet collapsed.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you, doctor.
Next on this bill, Layle Chester.
LAEL CHESTER - COLUMBIA JUSTICE LAB - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good evening, Chairs and members of the committee. I'm Lael Chester, I'm the director of the emerging adult justice project at Columbia University's Justice Lab. I conduct research specifically on youth transitioning into adulthood who becomes involved in the criminal justice system and I work closely with jurisdictions from around the country on creating fair, effective, and developmentally appropriate approaches to this distinct age group. As you may know, one state Vermont has raised the upper age of their juvenile system over the 18th birthday. Act 201 was passed and signed by Governor Scott in 2018. 18 year old's have been incorporated in the Vermont Juvenile Justice System now for over two years, and 19 year old's are scheduled to be included in July 2024. Similar proposals have been made in seven other states; California, Connect kit, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, Virginia, and Washington. The reason for the increasing interest in the burgeoning field of emerging adult justice and raise the age in particular is public7974 safety. As Robert Kinscherff just mentioned, there is a robust body of research, particularly in the fields of neurobiology, development of psychology and sociology that indicates that 18, 19, 20 year old are remarkably malleable and will mature and desist from chrome behavior if given developments to the appropriate courts and opportunities to do so. The expertise on youth development and family engagement already exists in the juvenile justice system, and expanding it is both practical and smart.
One of the questions often8012 ask in states in their discussion8014 about raise the age is how would this interact with federal laws, particularly the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act and the prison rape elimination act? As you may know, federal law encourages and direct states to separate youth from older adults to protect them from sexual abuse and other harms that have sadly been well documented when young people are placed in adult jails and prisons. Do these federal laws interfere with raise the age? The answer is no. Federal law allows states to find8048 youth in their own juvenile system8050 and provides 18 as the floor, not the ceiling. I'll submit a report with my written testimony that provides details, I hope that will be helpful to all of you. I should note there are already many emerging adults in the Massachusetts justice system, DUIS retains custody of youthful offenders until age 21, and also can serve youth voluntarily until age 22. Massachusetts is lucky to have DYS, which is considered to be one of the best juvenile8082 actual departments in the country. Expanding the scope of the juvenile court, juvenile probation, and juvenile corrections to serve older youth will not run afoul federal law, instead, we'll protect youth from the harms in the adult system, and it will leverage expertise and programming that that currently exists in the juvenile system to make our communities healthier and safer. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much for your testimony.
Next, we have a panel, Eric Rodrics, and Josiah Moretz.
No. Not online? No? Okay. Destiny Tolever?
Oh, she purchased Hello.
SPEAKER20 - I'm here.
SPEAKER1 - Hi, miss Oliver. Go go8131 ahead.
SPEAKER44 - Awesome. Thank you.
DESTINY TOLLIVER - BOSTON UNIVERSITY - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Thank you to the members of the joint committee on the judiciary for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of H 1710, S 942, an act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults. I'm Doctor Destiny Tolliver, and as a pediatrician in Boston, I care for kids and adolescents from birth until their early 20s. I'm also a researcher who studies the impact of criminal legal system involvement on child and adolescent health, and as a pediatrician and researcher, I support this Bill because shifting youth age 18 to 20 into the juvenile system will improve public health and reduce health disparities. As a primary care pediatrician, I see children with behavioral difficulties starting at a young age, often following adverse childhood experiences, things like abuse, neglect even more common stressors like poverty and housing insecurity. For my patients, I worry, I research, and I advocate because I know what the research shows; that kids in lower income households, kids with mental health needs, kids with traumatic experiences, are more likely to end up in the juvenile and adult criminal legal systems, and research shows that as many as 3/4 of incarcerated youth have a mental health8201 diagnosis and another study showed that 97% of incarcerated youth had experienced at least, one of those adverse childhood experiences that I described8210 above. In my own research, arrest in this young adult period was8214 associated with depression, suicidal thoughts, and an over two times higher odds8218 of premature death.
And while I'll do my best to keep my patients out of these systems, I8222 can't forget the ones who are already involved. We need to meet8226 the health and well-being needs of these kids, adolescents8228 and emerging adults who have already been through so much and what they need is support resources and another chance. As you know, the juvenile system has a stronger emphasis on rehabilitation, education, and second chances.8241 Providing supports to this age group is an important investment because the part of the brain responsible for decision making, planning ahead, and impulse control are still developing through the mid-20s. This Bill has the potential to improve supports for you during this critical developmental stage in a way that the adult system doesn't, which will improve their ability to make healthy and safe decisions in the long term. Additional, interaction with the legal system is associated with worse health outcomes, making recidivism a health risk factor. Recidivism also increases community levels and incarceration, which research shows his associated with worse community health outcomes from worse birth outcomes to, lower life expectancy. By moving, young people into a more developmentally appropriate and rehabilitation focused system, we have the potential to reduce our activism and improve health outcomes for individuals and communities. Because young people and communities most impacted by the criminal system are marginalized by race, income, and educational achievement, this policy has the potential to improve8303 health equity. This is why as a pediatrician and as a researcher, I support this Bill, it's an important step in improving the health of my patients. I appreciate your consideration of this Bill. I look forward to any questions. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much for your for your expertise and your testimony. Are there any questions? Hearing none. Thank you.
Next we have a panel, Leon Smith and Jay Blitzman, on both virtual.
SPEAKER40 - Good evening. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER1 - We can.
SPEAKER40 - Thank you so much.
LEON SMITH - CITIZENS FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good evening to the esteemed chairs and members of the committee. My name is Leon Smith, the executive director of Citizen for justice testifying in strong support of House 1710 and Senate 942. Others today have and will testify to the importance of this critical piece of legislation that would bring essential transformative change to the way our legal system handles older adolescents, but my testimony will focus on one data established point. Our juvenile legal system8365 has the capacity to implement this legislation should it pass. This fact is established by data from DYS,8373 the JPAD, and the8375 trial court database and charts with this data will be provided to you by my colleagues on the file. Looking at arrest and summons coming into the front door of the juvenile system, data establishes that there are fewer young people under 21 getting arrested and coming into court than in 13, the last time we increased the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. As evidenced by a 48% decrease in juvenile arrest rates and a 67% reduction in arrest rates for 18 to 20 year since 2013 according to the most recent publicly available data. This is the case despite8408 a recent uptick in offenses that8410 we believe is largely driven by ongoing8412 mental health impact of the trauma, isolation, depression, and anxiety young people face during the pandemic. These drops play out in the juvenile system data as both the court and DYS have seen case lows decline consistently despite the inclusion of 17 year old's in 2013.
Data from the juvenile court dashboard reveals sufficient capacity to absorb this population as case loads for all case types have declined steadily over the last decade since raising the age in 2013, culminating in a 34% drop in case filings since 2013, that number includes child welfare CRAs adoption and delinquency matters. If you focus in on delinquency and youthful offender matters that are most connected to public safety, there's8459 a 67% decrease in cases arraigned since 2013. When we look at the deep end of the juvenile system, DYS already provide services with better outcomes for this population and their case load numbers are down as we see in the 69% drop in detention admissions and 60% decline in new commitments since 2013. These statistics establish that yes, the court has the capacity to implement raising the age of court jurisdiction, anytime bold reform is proposed, there are always naysayers and doctors expressing that the system can't handle it. We heard that in 2013, and yet, we saw the successful integration of older young people in the juvenile system then leading to better outcomes for an entire generation of young people. This8507 data establishes that we can do it again, and for all of the reasons expressed by this Bill sponsors, AG Campbell, and others who come here to testify because of how8518 important this is, we should.8520 For those reasons, I ask that you favorably report this legislation. Thank you and happy to answer any8525 questions.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. That was very well timed.8527 Appreciate your patience today, and8529 thanks for your testimony.
SPEAKER34 - Thank you.
SPEAKER45 - Am I? Am I?
SPEAKER1 - Yes. Go right ahead.
JAY BLITZMAN - CENTER FOR LAW, BRAIN & BEHAVIOR - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good evening, chairs and members of the committee. My name is Jay Blitzman, I'm the retired first justice of the Middlesex division of the Massachusetts juvenile court. Hello, Senator Eldridge, Representative Barber, thank you for your extraordinary patience, it's been a very, very long day, but an extremely illuminating one, and, I'm glad that you had the patience to hang in there with us. From an equity and public safety perspective, raising the age is the most logical policy to follow. Indeed, to echo the words of my dear friend, Doctor Robert Kinscherff whom I work with, at the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior, it is essentially a no brainer. Developmental research concerning the age crime curve shows that the ages of 18 to 21 of the years of peak offending, after which there was a precipitous decline notwithstanding, the nature of the offense that occurs between 18 and 21, which may seem counterintuitive. This is directly related to the testimony you heard throughout the day about second look. There is a natural pathway to desistance. Given the fact that the recidivism rates in the juvenile court8608 are half of what they are in Massachusetts for the 18 to 24 year old cohort, as8614 testified today earlier by Attorney General Campbell and others, it's illogical not to put this 18 to 21 year old group, the more malleable group, as, noted by Lael Chester into the juvenile court, which is a much more rehabilitative setting which could promote rehabilitative trajectories. The rate of racial and ethic disparity8639 in our district, and superior courts for the 18 to 24 year old cohort is amongst the highest in the country as noted by the sentencing project and also by the Harvard study on racial disparity commissioned by the late great, Ralph Gantz.
Moving 18 to 21 year old's into the juvenile court also has8661 the benefit of enabling us to look at the issues contextually. The juvenile court has jurisdiction of child welfare cases of youth up until age 22, as well as in our youthful offenders jurisprudence youth up until age 21. This enables us to look at cradle to prison pipeline issues in a way which does not exist in the district court. As regards to the juvenile court being a kiddie court, that's mythology, I want to address that emphatically. Since 1996, juvenile court judges have had youthful offender jurisdiction, which means that juvenile court judges can sentence youth and youthful offender cases to state prisons in a way that the district courts cannot. District court sentencing is capped at house of correction sentences, they don't even have a jurisdiction over 10 year felonies, over serious felonies. The juvenile court does it, even within its delinquency jurisprudence, so the juvenile court is8717 not kiddie court. It has true sentencing authority and is the appropriate, venue to hear 18 to 21 year old's. I think public safety and equity really commend that you favorable report this legislation out. I've been testifying and supported this Bill for, I think as long as it's been filed, and I think the data now, if you look8740 at the data submitted, and I've submitted written testimony, while I was waiting to testify on behalf of an impressive array of retired judges, which include former Supreme court judges, a former chief justice of the juvenile court, a federal court district judge, appeals court judges, and a phalanx of superiority judges, we're all on board. The time is now, let's not wait, let's do the right thing,8767 let's better protect public safety and the futures of our young people. Thank you so much for your patience and the opportunity to testify.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Appreciate your testimony, and thank you for submitting written testimony as So thank you for your time. We have a few more people who signed up for this bill today. Carolyn Bays, No. And Randy Mohammed? Yeah. In
8791 a addition, I think we had someone else on teams, Joe, to talk about an8799 earlier bill.
SPEAKER46 - Hi. I'm here if you're ready for me. I'm sorry. I missed my name.
SPEAKER1 - You're fine. Yes. Go ahead.
SPEAKER46 - Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for doing this all day. We really appreciate it.
LANCE RIDDELL - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1129 - HB 3786 - Good evening, Chair Eldridge, vice Chair Barber, and the committee. Also, Chair Day, assuming you may listen to this on video, I'm sorry that other survivors did need to leave for many different reasons. Thank you, Senator Tarr support in filing Senate Bill 1129, an act relative to protecting the residents of the Commonwealth from dangerous people. Rep Diggs, as you know, also filed similar legislation, Bill H 3786, which I also support strongly. My name is Joe, I am a mom, a friend, a nurse, and a survivor of domestic abuse. I came again to advocate for my life, for the life of others and to protect our entire community from dangerous people. Victims are being filled by the Mass trial court system because8859 of loopholes and not holding repeat violent offenders accountable. Today is difficult as I reflect on all the survivors who came together and participated in roundtable events with former Governor Baker. I still find it hard to believe, I know people who endured such violence and such abuse and who live in constant fear. Heart wrenching stories of rape, children being raped, women strangled, beaten, stabbed, and a friend of mine punched so hard in her face that all her teeth were knocked out.
Children witnessed many of these violent acts, stories of dangerous abuses who had multiple restraining order violations, repeated violent behaviors, and who cut off their GPS devices. Women running, begging for protection and no shelters being available. A carman occurrence in all the stories was abusers and repeated offenders were given chance after chance after chance and not held accountable. Please know I8921 am not fundamentally against chances, clearly, today was about people deserving of a chance, but in domestic abuse victims also deserve a chance for safety, and we are not getting it. What I'm struggling with today is also wondering why and how after this addendum passed in the Senate by Senator Tarr, it was put to a study after so much discussion, and I8945 really want to know what I could do to8947 help and how I can make you understand how real our stories are. The issue I have also is remembering how survivors were called political pawns in a PR campaign, I want you to know there8960 is nothing further from the truth, and I wonder how there can be such a disconnect in all of this.
I don't know what stories from survivors I can repeat in three minutes to change this thought, I was hoping many of them would tell them today. I can assure you I am not a political pawn, and I want to work with you to make positive change. My abuser hit me fit on me, threaten the well-being of my children, I was controlled by his threats and lived in fear, he would do what he had promised. My abuser had multiple restraining order violations, then he cut off his GPS and ultimately was not held accountable and I was not protected. Our system empowered him and disregarded my life, disregarded the safety of my children, myself, and I still live in fear of him today. Senator Tarr already9012 explained this Bill, I ask9014 you that you do pass Bill 1129 favorably to make cutting off a GPS a felony and hold dangerous people until trial. Both actions would protect victims, and I believe with simple discussions, a balance can be found. I hope you know our stories are real, and I ask you to protect victims of domestic abuse from these dangerous people. Thank you very much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony, and thank you for your patience and and sticking with us today. So I appreciate it.
SPEAKER46 - Thank you. I'm sorry. I went over a little house.
SPEAKER1 - You're Thank you. Thank you. Finally, we have James J Watson who signed up earlier. No? Okay. Is there anyone else who registered to testify today who I have not called yet? If not, that concludes the judiciary committee's criminal procedures hearing. Thank you to everyone who took time out of their day and night to participate to your Eldridge and the other committee members, we all really appreciate your testimony and your If anyone wants to follow-up or supplement your testimony, please do so with written testimony, send it to the judiciary committee research director Michael Musto@michael.mustom@mahouse.gov.
Thank you again, and I hope you9098 have a great rest of your evening.
© InstaTrac 2025