Parole for LWOP-Sentenced Murderers

In the many, many debates that I have had on capital punishment over the years, almost all of the opponents have promised the audience that we don’t need the death penalty to prevent release of murderers back in the community because we have this wonderful alternative of life without parole. The badly worded poll questions that opponents love to cite (see this post) involve offering life without parole as the alternative.

One of the problems with that argument is that there is no such thing as life in prison with no possibility of parole. Future governors, legislatures, or courts may create a possibility of parole even for the very worst murderers.

Tim Cruz has this article in the City Journal, titled Why Is Massachusetts Releasing First-Degree Murderers?

Massachusetts was once a national leader in protecting the rights of victims of crime. Sadly, those days are long gone. A recent ruling by the state’s high court has punched a massive hole in the consequences for first-degree murder. The parole board, which lacks both public accountability and representation for the victims of crime, has taken advantage of this opening to release convicted murderers onto the streets. To get back to putting victims’ rights first, Massachusetts should reform its parole board to ensure transparency and public accountability, including by giving victims and prosecutors a real voice in the process.

In 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Mattis that sentences of life without parole are unconstitutional when applied to “emerging adults” between the ages of 18 and 20 at the time of their crimes. The decision made Massachusetts the only state with such a lenient standard.

The court claimed to base this new constitutional right on “contemporary standards of decency”—a phrase that seems to reflect little more than the majority’s personal views. The justices offered no deference to the state legislature, crime victims, or broader considerations of public safety.