AFTER ATTENDING MORE than 50 parole hearings for prisoners with parole-eligible life sentences, and having spent the past 35 years interrogating the criminal legal system, it’s clear to me that the Massachusetts Parole Board has an almost impossible job. They yearly vote for or against release for more than 3,000 people, and in so doing, must predict if a person is no longer a risk to public safety. The board is the lynchpin to allow prisoners to serve the remainder of their sentences in the community.

And now, that job will soon be more difficult because of a newly parole-eligible cohort: emerging adults. Due to the recent landmark ruling, Commonwealth v. Mattis, this group—those 18 to 20 years of age at the time of their crime and previously doomed to a life without parole sentence—will have the same protections against such a sentence that was declared unconstitutional for juveniles in 2013. Life without parole is now unconstitutional for anyone in Massachusetts who was 20 or younger at the time of the crime.

On one hand, this is a very positive sign for lessening mass incarceration, as the US incarcerates the most people in the world. Releasing worthy applicants who have served 20, 30, and even 40 years behind bars, will lessen our prison population. The Mattis decision also places Massachusetts at the forefront of states, beyond Washington and Michigan, each of which have taken judicial actions against life without parole for late adolescents. But Mattis marks Massachusetts as the first in the nation to “categorically bar life without parole sentences” for this population.

On the other hand, the Massachusetts Parole Board, already stretched beyond imagination, now has more work.

The full seven-member board is down one and limping along with only six members to do an Olympian job. They must be familiar with each person who comes before them, reading literally dozens of pages on applicants prior to their hearings. Twice a week, the full board listens to two hour in-person lifer hearings, totaling 12 to 14 weekly. For two other days, members travel to prisons and houses of correction throughout the state, conducting hearings individually or in groups of two or three. They also spend one day in their Natick office discussing and voting on cases. In 2022, according to their annual report, the board held a total of 3,008 parole hearings.

In their other role as the Advisory Board of Pardons, Parole Board members review clemency petitions, including requests for both commutations and pardons—a commutation is a reduction in sentence; a pardon removes the underlying offense—and they are expected to review even more since new clemency guidelines were issued in 2023 by Gov. Maura Healey.

I know many advocates, governor’s councilors, and legislators who have voiced their concern to Gov. Healy, asking why it is taking so long to find a qualified seventh candidate for the board. They have cited the uptick in the body’s workload and lobbied for qualified candidates. However, even when that seat is filled, in order to assure petitioners get a fair and timely shot at parole, the Parole Board needs to expand. 

Currently, there is a bill before the Legislature to do just that: An Act to Promote Equitable Access to Parole, with versions filed by Sen. Liz Miranda and Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa. Among other things, the bill expands the board from seven to nine members, and requires that at least four candidates have at least five years of experience in psychiatry, psychology, social work, or the treatment of substance use disorder. One board member must be formerly incarcerated and have completed the parole process. 

Last year, Sen. Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Mary Keefe urged Gov. Healey to add an impacted person with a letter stating, “An essential lived experience that has too often been excluded from the Parole Board is one that can only be derived from a period of incarceration.”

The influx of cases from Mattis could swamp the board for another reason. Each decision the board votes on must be written up and recorded. Those who do not have life sentences usually find out their fate immediately, but life-sentenced decisions now take about three months. This is a far cry from the eight to 12 months they took with the previous two boards. But Mattis cases could slow the board down again.

The Equitable Access bill recently had a hearing before the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and awaits a vote to move it out of committee by April 8, As Patty Garin, a Northeastern University School of Law professor who supervises students representing lifers at Parole Board hearings, said about the bill at a briefing on the legislation last year, it’s “common sense.” A vote for this bill would help assure that second chances are important in this Commonwealth and provide the board with more means to make them real. 

For an applicant, it’s a marathon to earn parole—take responsibility for one’s crime; involve oneself in positive thinking and programs behind bars that inspire change; come up with a strong release plan; seek a support community for exiting prison. To assure that those leaving prison have the best possible opportunity for success and to ensure safety for all, our Parole Board should not be limping along.

Jean Trounstine writes for Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism, where she has reported extensively on the Mattis case and other parole matters. Her debut fiction, Motherlove (Concord Free Press), drops March 21st.