Judiciary committee hears wide-ranging juvenile justice reform bills including diversion, expungement and interrogation protections

Chairs Michael Day and Lydia Edwards heard more than a dozen witnesses on juvenile justice bills that lawmakers and advocates say aim to reduce youth incarceration, limit long-term collateral consequences and stop coerced confessions.

Proponents urged the committee to expand judicial diversion eligibility, make it easier to clear juvenile records, raise the minimum age for youthful offender treatment and adopt protections for juveniles during custodial interrogation. Witnesses also described how automatic sharing of juvenile arrest fingerprint data with federal agencies has led to ICE detentions in Chelsea, raising calls to block that sharing for minors.

The Office of the Child Advocate told the committee that research shows diversion improves outcomes and reduces recidivism. Melissa Threadgill of the Office of the Child Advocate said expanding access to diversion would give “a judge 1 more tool to find solutions” and pointed to the Massachusetts Youth Diversion Program, which she said already operates in seven of 11 district attorney districts and had an 88 percent program completion rate in 2024. Sana Fadel of Citizens for Juvenile Justice described how many young people arraigned later had no adjudication: “Of the 3,900 young people who were arraigned and have a juvenile record, only 600 and some actually were adjudicated delinquent. That's 17 percent.”

Supporters including juvenile defenders and nonprofit coalitions pressed for House Bill 16 57 / Senate Bill 10 58 (expungement) and related measures. Laura Alffering of the Committee for Public Counsel Services called for widening eligibility for expungement and for removing lifetime barriers created by non‑convictions: “Because you are only able to expunge 2 non‑convictions on your record... you will be penalized as the laws stand now.” Advocates said current limits leave many youth with records that hinder housing, employment and education.

Several witnesses urged changes to the youthful offender statute that allows some juveniles to receive adult penalties. Joshua Dankoff and a formerly incarcerated speaker, Jovan Cowd, described the statute's disproportional application to Black and Latino youth and asked the committee to raise the minimum age and remove mandatory minimums that can convert juvenile adjudications into adult prison time. “Doing a 10‑and‑a‑half‑year sentence as a mistake I made at 15 is, like, kind of outrageous,” Jovan told the committee.

On custodial interrogations, prosecutors, defense counsel and innocence‑work groups urged statutory protections to prevent false confessions. Leon Smith of Citizens for Juvenile Justice summarized research findings: “Only 1 in 5 young people understand the Miranda rights, and young people waive those rights 90% of the time.” Witnesses proposed recorded interrogations, a requirement that counsel be present before questioning for felony allegations, and bans on deceptive interrogation tactics.

Attorney Jeff Richards of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, citing a case he handled, warned how “a frightened, meek, emotionally compromised teenager” can be coerced into a false confession and urged mandatory recording and counsel. The New England Innocence Project likewise argued deception should be prohibited and interviews should be recorded.

Multiple witnesses from Chelsea — including Catherine Anderson and Vanessa Mendoza Mercado of the Chelsea Teachers Union, city councilor Roberto Jimenez and community leaders Gladys Vega and David DeVito — described recent incidents they attribute to the practice of sending juvenile fingerprints to the FBI, which they say permitted rapid ICE response in their city. Catherine Anderson described a May incident where two students arrested at school were fingerprinted and later detained by ICE; she said the sequence “was chilling” and that families in Chelsea have been terrorized by ICE presence. Testimony called for statutory limits on federal dissemination of juvenile arrest prints.

Juvenile defenders also addressed GPS monitoring, juvenile fines and fees, and the structure of diversion and DYS commitments. Laura Alffering cautioned that GPS ankle monitoring can “be its own form of incarceration” and asked the committee to limit and review its use. Alisa Hoban of Juvenile Law Center urged elimination of juvenile fines and fees, saying they are counterproductive and often increase recidivism.

Several national and state organizations — the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Greater Boston Legal Services, and others — backed bills to expand expungement and reduce collateral consequences. Speakers urged the committee to align statutes with contemporary research on adolescent development to avoid life‑long penalties for behavior that may reflect immaturity.

Committee chairs and members asked practical questions about service availability and court authority. Threadgill said the Youth Diversion Program provides evidence‑based services for many referred cases, including assault matters, and described the program’s expansion to additional districts. Advocates said widening judicial discretion without services would be pointless; Threadgill and others said services are being scaled up.

The hearing produced no formal votes. Committee members accepted written testimony and said they would consider the proposals further.

Ending note: The committee is considering multiple narrowly targeted statutory changes — some to expand diversion and record clearing, others to restrict interrogation practices and to prevent federal access to juvenile arrest data — that advocates say together would reduce racial disparities and the lasting harms of early justice system contact.