We have a public safety and justice system that protects residents of all backgrounds.

Boston’s Police Department and others around the region have long been considered models of community policing and engagement, working to build stronger relationships in neighborhoods and with a range of community leaders, such as clergy. The use of neighborhood advisory councils, the community ombudsman program and the institution of procedures that ensure dialogue with minority community leaders after incidents of violence between police and community residents are important elements of this approach, as we have seen in Boston and Somerville’s Teen Empowerment program. Similarly in Cambridge, the police department works with the schools and public health officials to identify at-risk young people before they get caught in the criminal justice system. These approaches should be maintained and expanded across the region.

Mandatory minimum sentences require judges to impose a predetermined term of incarceration for individuals convicted of committing certain offenses, such as distributing illegal narcotics. The sentences are levied regardless of a defendant’s criminal history or other mitigating factors. This sentencing practice has driven higher incarceration rates, particularly for Black and Latino men. People sentenced to mandatory minimum often aren’t eligible for early release programs or other transition programs, which ultimately results in an increased risk of recidivism. The range of crimes triggering minimum sentences should be scaled back, especially for non-violent drug-related offenses, enabling judges to consider a range of factors in determining sentences.

Implicit racial bias can have a profound effect on the relationship between law enforcement officers and residents. Training related to implicit bias, the use of force and interacting with individuals suffering from conditions such as mental illness and substance abuse problems can help improve police and community relations. Six cities around the country are currently participating in the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice, and local communities should seek to follow suit. Funding to enable officers from across the state to take such trainings, which are offered by organizations such as the NAACP would encourage participation. Local police departments could also require officers to take bias training, as a bill before the legislature proposes.

Human rights organizations, legal scholars, health professionals, and advocates all agree that solitary confinement is a violation of basic human rights and should be abolished or severely restricted. Most proponents agree that inmates should only be kept in solitary confinement if they pose a threat to the prison population and they should be given special behavioral programming to address the underlying issues. Any inmate in solitary confinement must experience humane treatment and be given access to regular programs and services.

Currently 18-year-olds are automatically tried as adults in Massachusetts, but many advocates argue that this should be raised to 21 for some offenses. There is significant evidence to suggest that the adult brain isn’t fully formed until a person is closer to 20 years old, and that the differences in brain development lead to challenges with impulse control. Young people who remain in the juvenile justice system are far more likely to finish school and receive workforce training or coaching than those who land in adult justice systems.

When 18-year-olds are tried as adults and sent to adult prisons, they are at greater risk of recidivism and developing mental health issues.¹ Juvenile records are typically sealed, but if young people commit crimes and are tried as adults, the records will follow them for the rest of their life.

In the last eight years, 48 states, including Massachusetts, have increased civil and/or criminal fees that are assessed on defendants. Debt accumulated through court-imposed fines and fees can show up on an individual’s credit score and consequently affect their ability to secure housing or employment. In Massachusetts, criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay court-imposed fines can be ordered to serve jail time, adding $30 per day onto their debt until it is resolved. This practice disproportionately affects low-income people of color. Some proposals would allow the court officer to determine a defendants’ ability to pay before assessing fines and fees, and would create a more flexible fine system.

Data suggests that incarceration, especially over longer periods of time, is correlated with recidivism. While prisons may serve to protect our communities from those who have a high risk to offend, these same prisons can end up holding many who have committed non-violent crimes. Placing these non-violent offenders in prison may contribute to the risk of physical and mental health issues, does add to the economic burden of our prison system, and, most importantly, removes these individuals, especially women and caretakers, from families and neighborhoods that rely on them. Many states, including California and New York, have taken steps to eliminate mandatory sentencing for non-violent offenders and to create programmatic alternatives to hold the offenders accountable for their behavior while reducing the potential for lasting negative outcomes from involvement in the prison system. An example of this legislation in Massachusetts is the Primary Caretakers bill which would keep parents and children together as the parent fulfills their obligations under a community-based sentencing alternative.¹