The Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony recently on a long list of criminal justice-related bills. Among them was H. 1797, An Act to Reduce Mass Incarceration, sponsored by state Reps. Liz Miranda and Jay Livingstone.
Do not be fooled by the title, as it has little to do with “mass incarceration.” Instead, if passed, the bill would eliminate the sentence of life without parole. This is the sentence imposed upon those convicted of first-degree murder. That is the most heinous of crimes – taking a life with either premeditation, extreme atrocity and cruelty, or while committing another serious crime.
Proponents of this legislation argue that the bill does not automatically grant parole, only the possibility of parole. While the difference between no parole and the “possibility” of parole may not seem significant for most people, it is a huge difference for many victims’ families.
The difference between the person who brutally extinguished the life of your loved one never walking free and the “possibility” that they may be paroled is night and day. Preparing for and attending a parole board hearing to oppose the parole of your loved one’s killer is traumatic. For those families who know that is on the horizon, peace is elusive, in essence, sentencing them to a life of fear, worry, and suffering.
One of the arguments against reinstating the death penalty in Massachusetts was the assurance that first-degree murderers would spend their natural life in prison, thereby protecting the public and providing a small shred of relief to the victim’s families.
As a death penalty opponent, I agree with this rationale. A life without parole sentence provides finality while still allowing a reversal in the event of a wrongful conviction. Eliminating life without parole will do nothing to address wrongful convictions. One has nothing to do with the other.
And while the families and friends of the victims of these crimes certainly bear the worst loss, let us not underestimate the cost to society. We are all diminished by the loss of a teacher, business owner, grandfather, daughter, mother, friend. Who knows how their life would have played out and, in what ways, they would have contributed to the greater good. That is the point. We will never know because of the decision to kill made by another person.
To be clear, life without parole should be reserved only for the worst criminals ― first-degree murderers. These are people who planned to kill and/or did so in an extremely cruel manner. As a society, we must maintain a standard of decency. The sentence of life without parole is an expression of that standard; the value of a human life taken with such depravity requires permanent removal from society.
Jonathan W. Blodgett is currently serving his fifth term as Essex District Attorney. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Office of Victim Assistance and the Addiction Policy Forum. He is past president of the National District Attorneys Association and the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association.
