Criminal Justice Policy Coalition

Caitlin Glass teaches at Boston University School of Law, where she
directs the Racial Justice and Movement Lawyering Clinic.

This spring, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mandatory
life-without-parole sentences for people convicted of felony murder
constitute cruel punishment and therefore violate the state
constitution. This groundbreaking opinion signals state courts’
willingness to grapple with longstanding yet long-critiqued doctrines
that extend the legal system’s harshest punishments to broad swaths of
people without any inquiry into their individual actions and
intentions.

The accomplice liability doctrine — or joint venture, as it’s known in
Massachusetts — means that the prosecution does not have to show that
the accused person caused a death, whereas the felony murder doctrine
relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove intent to cause death.
The result is that a person who was present at a homicide — standing
nearby, coerced to join an abusive partner, or doing anything that
prosecutors later frame as assistance — can be charged and punished
the same as a person who intentionally killed.

Take the case of Roberto Lopez-Ortiz. In 2013, Lopez-Ortiz and others
agreed to a scheme where they would set up a fake drug buy in order to
steal narcotics and cash. Lopez-Ortiz testified that he told his
friends he wouldn’t participate in the arrangement if there was a gun.
When someone did bring one, Lopez-Ortiz yelled that he didn’t sign up
for this and pushed the gunman away. He ran, but the gunman remained
And killed someone.
The jury believed that Lopez-Ortiz wasn’t armed and didn’t shoot
anyone. It acquitted him of murder, armed home invasion, and armed
assault. But it convicted him of unarmed assault with intent to rob,
which in turn required it to convict him of murder. Under the law,
Lopez-Ortiz was just as responsible for murder as the gunman. He would
receive the same mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Several
jurors submitted letters to the judge asking for leniency, but the law
left no discretion to grant it.
While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowed felony murder
liability shortly after Lopez-Ortiz’s conviction, the changes were
neither comprehensive nor retroactive — meaning that Lopez-Ortiz is
still condemned to die in prison and others who never killed anyone
are still being convicted of murder.
The joint venture and felony murder doctrines contradict some of
society’s most basic instincts about the relationship between criminal
liability and moral culpability. Jurors often experience confusion and
moral distress about imposing a murder conviction in cases where the
accused never killed anyone.
These doctrines also invite error, allowing guilt to be inferred from
presence, association, or ambiguous circumstances. Research shows that
Black and brown people are more likely to be viewed as acting
together, which can lead to inferences of collective culpability based
on stereotypes rather than evidence. There is a stark
overrepresentation of people of color among those serving life without
parole for felony murder (82 percent) versus other forms of
first-degree murder (56 percent).
The Massachusetts Legislature has advanced a reform that would
separate murder from accomplice murder, aligning the law with moral
intuitions that distinguish between these categories. Instead of
mandatory life imprisonment, accomplice murder would be punishable by
up to 25 years, allowing for individualized assessments of culpability
and punishment. These changes would be retroactive, giving people like
Lopez-Ortiz a path to seek relief.

This kind of policy change is popular because it aligns with basic
instincts about accountability. A recent poll of Massachusetts voters
from across the political spectrum showed that 79 percent of
respondents expressed support for distinguishing accomplice murder as
its own offense carrying a sentence of up to 25 years in prison.
Likewise, 84 percent of respondents indicated that a punishment should
be based on an individual’s actions and level of responsibility rather
than the acts of another.

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are not alone in rethinking felony
murder and accomplice liability. California, Minnesota, and Colorado
have all enacted reforms. California saved between $94 million and
$1.2 billion in prison costs over the first three years.
While some may argue that these reforms pose a risk to public safety,
such claims rest on fear, not evidence. Recidivism rates among those
released under California’s bill were “notably low,” and study after
study have shown that extreme sentences don’t make people safer.
Rather than addressing the root causes of harm, joint venture and
felony murder laws only perpetuate cycles of violence through wide
nets of liability and draconian sentences that disrupt communities.

The proposed legislation in Massachusetts does not excuse harm or
eliminate accountability. Indeed, several men who are currently
serving life sentences under the joint venture theory have testified
that they want to be held accountable. They’re only asking to be held
accountable for what they’ve done.

Massachusetts has a chance to lead the nation by bringing the law into
greater alignment with our moral judgments. It should.

People like to believe prison is contained.

That it’s a consequence that starts and ends behind a fence.
That once someone goes in, the punishment stays there.

That idea is clean.

It’s also wrong.

Because the moment someone gets locked up… everything around them shifts.

Families don’t go to prison.
But their lives start revolving around it.

Days get built around phone windows.
Plans depend on visitation approvals.
Your mood starts hinging on whether communication comes through or not.

And when it doesn’t… you feel it immediately.

Not as inconvenience.
As pressure.

Nobody prepares you for that.

The constant checking.
The waiting.
The mental math of trying to figure out what silence means.

Because silence is never just silence.

It’s questions.
It’s assumptions.
It’s your mind filling in gaps you were never given answers for.

Then there’s the financial reality.

Calls cost money.
Messages cost money.
Basic comfort costs money.

And that burden doesn’t stay inside.

It lands on the outside.

On families.

And the expectation is clear:

You’re supposed to handle it.

Not occasionally.
Consistently.

Support becomes routine.
Not something recognized.
Something assumed.

Like it’s part of the deal you signed… even though you didn’t sign anything.

People will say things like:
“At least they’re okay.”

But “okay” isn’t what families are managing.

They’re managing uncertainty.
They’re managing inconsistency.
They’re managing the emotional weight of being connected to something they can’t control.

And over time, that weight adds up.

Because the system doesn’t just take freedom.

It takes control.
It takes predictability.
It takes peace…

from people who never stepped inside.

And the hardest part isn’t just carrying it.

It’s carrying it without acknowledgment.

No one checks on the ones holding everything together on the outside.

They’re just expected to keep doing it.

So they do.

👉 If you’ve lived this, you don’t need it explained.

VISITATION MISTAKES TO AVOID (WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU)

Visitation isn’t just showing up.

If you don’t understand how it works… you’ll learn the hard way.

⸻

❌ 1. Not checking the rules before you go

Every facility is different.

Dress codes.
Allowed items.
ID requirements.
Time limits.

One mistake and you’re turned around at the door.

👉 Always check the facility’s rules before every visit. They change.

⸻

❌ 2. Dressing wrong

This is one of the fastest ways to get denied.

Too tight.
Too revealing.
Wrong colors.
Certain shoes.

It doesn’t matter what your intention was.

👉 If it’s questionable… don’t wear it.

⸻

❌ 3. Showing up late

Visitation runs on their time, not yours.

Even a small delay can mean:

* Shortened visit
* Or no visit at all

👉 Get there early. Plan for delays.

⸻

❌ 4. Bringing the wrong items

Phones.
Purses.
Cash.
Certain keys.

Most of it isn’t allowed inside.

👉 Bring only what you KNOW is approved.

⸻

❌ 5. Expecting a smooth process

Delays happen.

Counts.
Staff shortages.
Random shutdowns.

You might wait hours.

👉 Go in expecting patience will be tested.

⸻

❌ 6. Taking attitude to the gate

Frustration is normal.

Showing it to staff will make things worse.

👉 Stay calm, respectful, and controlled… no matter what.

⸻

❌ 7. Overloading the visit emotionally

You haven’t seen them in a while.

You’ve got a lot to say.

But dumping everything at once can turn the visit heavy.

👉 Keep it balanced. Connection over chaos.

⸻

❌ 8. Taking things personally

If they seem off… distracted… or not fully present…

It might not be about you.

👉 They’re still inside that environment when you leave.

⸻

❌ 9. Forgetting how hard it is after you leave

The visit ends.

You walk out.

They don’t.

👉 Be mindful of what you leave them thinking about.

⸻

❌ 10. Not preparing yourself mentally

Visitation can hit you after it’s over.

The drive home.
The silence.
The emotional drop.

👉 Plan for it. Don’t ignore it.

⸻

THE REALITY

Visitation is one of the most important parts of staying connected.

But it’s also one of the most misunderstood.

⸻

If you go in prepared…

you protect the time you get.

⸻

👉 What’s something you learned the hard way about visitation?

https://youtu.be/M3eCoE_kSac

Episode 14 The Women Who Hold It Down. Tudo Djunto. Featuring Jarelis and Joanna and Luz Villar Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

Beacon Hill’s Blindest Spot: Can The Governor’s Council Reverse A Century Of Oversight? A Massachusetts State House briefing sheds light on a crucial body that still operates in darkness, and points out the need for reform—on the ballot and elsewhere

The Waiting Game: Thousands Of Mass Prisoners Are Stuck On Education Waitlists With waitlists nearly triple the size of current enrollment, prisoner rights advocates say the DOC prioritizes punishment over preparation

https://boltsmag.org/massachusetts-prisons-contract-with-ice/

Inside ICE’s Only Contract with a Blue State As part of a 287(g) contract between state officials and ICE, Massachusetts continues to release prisoners into deportation—even as state lawmakers look to ban other forms of ICE collaboration.