Inequitable Outcomes, Severe Consequences

Rethinking the Youthful Offender Statute in Massachusetts

This report analyzes Massachusetts' Youthful Offender (YO) statute, enacted in the 1990s during a period of “tough-on-crime” legislative reforms, which allows certain youth aged 14-17 to be receive adult criminal sanctions. The report examines YO case trends, racial disparities, and adverse impacts on youth development, highlighting significant overrepresentation of Black and Latine youth among YO indictments. It concludes with recommendations for reforms to mitigate the punitive and racially disproportionate outcomes that disproportionately affect youth of color in the state.

Key Findings

  • YO filings represent a small share of Juvenile Court cases but show significant racial disparities, with Black and Latine youth representing 77% of all YO cases.

  • YO indictment rates vary by county, with higher rates observed in counties like Essex, Suffolk, and Berkshire counties, largely representing DA policy choices.

  • Judges have extensive discretion in YO sentencing, including sometimes leading to more severe sentences than similarly situated 18-year olds would receive for similar offenses in the adult Superior Court.

  • Black and Latine youth are more frequently charged under YO for weapons-related offenses, which are often connected to safety concerns in their communities rather than criminal intent.

Select Recommendations

  • Legislators should reevaluate the youthful offender statutory framework in light of current research and juvenile legal reform and consider reducing the scope of the YO statute in the following ways: Limit criteria for YO eligibility by only applying a previous DYS commitment for a felony, excluding YO charges for weapon carrying (only allowing YO charges where a firearm was used in furtherance of a crime), and raising the minimum age of eligibility from 14 to 16.

  • Support further research into racial disparities: Investigate racial disparities in YO charging decisions, and sentencing patterns.

  • Expand diversion opportunities: DAs should work to ensure that pre-arraignment youth diversion programs can remain an outcome for youths charged with gun possession.

  • Appropriate sentencing: Youth indicted as youthful offenders should receive reasonable and developmentally appropriate dispositions/sentences rather than suspended or direct adult sentences equal to the maximum sentence that an adult would receive in Superior Court.