SJC Ruling Causes Concern for Victims’ Families
On March 23rd, the state’s highest court ruled that prisoners who committed murder as juveniles can appeal parole denials to a Superior Court judge and are entitled to legal representation and expert witnesses at their parole hearings, all at the tax payers’ expense. This ruling is incredibly concerning for us – the victims’ families.
Why would the Supreme Judicial Court not offer the same representation and support to the victims’ families who plan to attend every parole hearing? We, like the juvenile homicide offenders, also lack the skills and resources to gather, analyze, and present our evidence adequately. We feel that the survivors of the victims, who have testified in a court of law that convicted these murderers, have been forgotten.
The SJC’s decision stated that these offenders deserve special protections at parole hearings that are not given to other inmates. Well, we strongly believe that there was no need for a special parole or appeal for these killers. Yet, we’ll now be forced to suffer through an appeal process and possible rehearing if parole is denied. Is this what the SJC calls justice?
The lack of effort by the SJC and many legislators on our behalf is incredibly disappointing, especially when there has been immense effort put forth to accommodate and support the parole and ultimate release of our family members’ killers.
Justices Francis Spina and Robert Cordy both opposed the SJC ruling, stating that the court was overstepping its bounds by now making the parole process, which is an executive branch of government, part of the judicial sentencing process. In our opinion, the SJC is blurring the line between sentencing and parole while showing blatant favoritism for cold, heartless killers.
Erin Downing
Saugus, MA
Sean Alyward
Groveland, MA
Donna Jennings Villaire
Plymouth, MA
Jen Boisvert
Beverly, MA
Danielle Marie White
Newmarket, NH
Why would the Supreme Judicial Court not offer the same representation and support to the victims’ families who plan to attend every parole hearing? We, like the juvenile homicide offenders, also lack the skills and resources to gather, analyze, and present our evidence adequately. We feel that the survivors of the victims, who have testified in a court of law that convicted these murderers, have been forgotten.
The SJC’s decision stated that these offenders deserve special protections at parole hearings that are not given to other inmates. Well, we strongly believe that there was no need for a special parole or appeal for these killers. Yet, we’ll now be forced to suffer through an appeal process and possible rehearing if parole is denied. Is this what the SJC calls justice?
The lack of effort by the SJC and many legislators on our behalf is incredibly disappointing, especially when there has been immense effort put forth to accommodate and support the parole and ultimate release of our family members’ killers.
Justices Francis Spina and Robert Cordy both opposed the SJC ruling, stating that the court was overstepping its bounds by now making the parole process, which is an executive branch of government, part of the judicial sentencing process. In our opinion, the SJC is blurring the line between sentencing and parole while showing blatant favoritism for cold, heartless killers.
Erin Downing
Saugus, MA
Sean Alyward
Groveland, MA
Donna Jennings Villaire
Plymouth, MA
Jen Boisvert
Beverly, MA
Danielle Marie White
Newmarket, NH
