[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6207822,"mediaKeyId","3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8","parentId",3752442,"title","Lawmakers hear bill to bar minors from seafood processing after federal investigation found underage workers","audioSeconds",136,"startMs",307000,"endMs",443000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8&start=307&end=443","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8/thumbnail_307000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6207822/Massachusetts/Lawmakers-hear-bill-to-bar-minors-from-seafood-processing-after-federal-investigation-found-underage-workers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6207822-6b3298f7407fc52de62d47d152a750cc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437902&Signature=R38RdgZsYUWxe1M1RFkiqGjJzmziThTOB1JvOWLVXpqEome2Jnx9GXLlC~LL7ij8nw0vtteEZJimsGK3BnDNdLZSV-ocE2epuSGABV14xxKXZnJKTvVsnFo7Twn~9C7A41m4Xy5wY7daeq-56G3Iy~WuIQ0Y5hegGQvvKlZqSRDdrktfr8ZmAjXEk09Q8DFxoDy7LrAkQnXumMVtTVr~ayDITsg0zXQnxTVsrdRQwE7bHQJqRhzRbS6ZoGa4U89nPZkIpBSY5GaGB8Ial6zR-6QqZqW635YY88BDSw0g8Ilq-wRCQpKLUj~BCJ7RmfMSMMlFhGWhnTKgZZZI5La0rw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Joint Committee on the Judiciary","date","2025-06-10T00:00:00Z","article","A representative told the Joint Committee on the Judiciary that the Legislature should update Massachusetts child‑labor law to explicitly bar minors from seafood packing and processing facilities and to raise penalties after federal investigations revealed illegal employment of children in fish processing.

Why it matters: Testimony argued the seafood processing sector, which relies heavily on subcontracting, has been a locus of child‑labor violations; supporters said statutory clarification and stronger penalties are needed to deter exploitation.

Representative Hendricks testified that he filed House Bill 17‑44 after federal investigators found dozens of children, some as young as 13, working in hazardous conditions at seafood processing plants in New Bedford. “This bill closes loopholes that previously allowed limited fish processing employment under outdated seasonal exceptions,” Hendricks said, noting the legislation would add “seafood packing or processing facilities” to the list of prohibited workplaces for minors under 18.

The bill would also increase civil and criminal penalties, raising the maximum fine for a single violation from $500 to $20,000 and authorizing aggravated penalties up to $100,000 in the most serious cases, Hendricks said. The measure would target exploitative employers and subcontractors who take advantage of seasonal or subcontracted labor.

Supporters emphasized the vulnerability of undocumented minors and unaccompanied children who may lack the means to report abuse. Hendricks said the proposed penalties would be imposed alongside enforcement tools including criminal prosecution and civil remedies.

The committee did not take a vote during the hearing; Hendricks asked for a favorable report so the Legislature could consider strengthening the commonwealth’s child‑labor protections.

Ending: The Judiciary Committee has the bill under advisement; proponents said the measure would align Massachusetts law with federal enforcement findings and improve deterrence against unlawful child labor in hazardous processing environments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Committee on the Judiciary - 6-10-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Hendricks and advocates urged a favorable report for a bill that would add seafood packing and processing facilities to the list of prohibited workplaces for minors and increase civil and criminal penalties for violations following federal findings of underage employment in fish processing plants.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MA, Massachusetts","taxId",77682,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6207826,"Hundreds testify in support of bills to protect bodily autonomy after COVID-era mandates",566,10214000,10780000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8&start=10214&end=10780","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8/thumbnail_10214000.jpg","/articles/6207826/Massachusetts/Hundreds-testify-in-support-of-bills-to-protect-bodily-autonomy-after-COVID-era-mandates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6207826-ee44d7dd909e178a66e94df8821f73a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437902&Signature=emSAOXFccWIqxC9JB3j0W6PuybC8zgoq8gangZrVsC6EmLm~UEc3HoecvIfCQNp0qTAJSk92jtm2kOkGEM-vWjhGNtAD-ZDkBcw1gd24Pjb01jZchJo8~NziUTeqpyu8saSVs-tB1I7pu-O1wE~TARMZykWAZEPj7p77k7G4GH4~2RFP2OjK461K-9gi1iSnRyy3WBjdDQHfCwvHs4q8oDUuPXfInOU~TeGBrSbR2HQg6y0Pp84xun3i0S00al6x4zadE-6TC9izAuwtH8cf-uvJR8WnyyqarByZeF06JEw8K0SN5UWjwaXGwgIaxfjxRQFJ25MTp-0F~kJsWAw5zA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dozens of witnesses, including health professionals, parents and workers, told the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to pass bills that would enshrine protections for individual medical decision‑making and ban coercive mandates and incentives tied to medical interventions.

Why it matters: Supporters characterized the measures as safeguards for informed consent, arguing that employment and school mandates during the COVID pandemic coerced many people into medical interventions or caused job and education loss for those who refused.

Multiple witnesses recounted personal harm tied to mandates. Anne Marie Cromwick described workplace measures after the COVID vaccine became available: she said mask and workplace restrictions “relegated me as a class citizen” and that her son later lost his college opportunity due to a campus vaccine requirement. “No person should ever be compelled to submit to a medical intervention when they do not want,” she told the committee.

Medical professionals also spoke. Dr. Sarah Schulman, a physician with decades of hospital experience, said she was fired after declining an employer mandate and argued the bills would uphold the “cornerstone of ethical medicine and human dignity.” Several nurses and other clinicians described being forced to choose between employment and a medical intervention.

Supporters asked the Legislature to make three main changes: (1) prohibit coercive or mandatory medical interventions by public or private entities for routine employment or school participation, (2) prohibit financial or other inducements that operate as de facto coercion, and (3) preserve narrow exceptions (for certain occupational licensing or safety testing) and allow legal remedies for people who were harmed by previous mandates.

Opponents of similar measures have argued that narrow exceptions are needed for certain safety‑sensitive jobs or public‑health emergencies; witnesses and sponsors said the bills include limited carveouts for testing and licensing and that the measure would not block voluntary public‑health strategies.

Ending: The Judiciary Committee accepted a long series of witness statements and asked for written testimony to be filed; proponents urged a favorable report to prevent future employment and education disruptions related to mandates and to preserve informed consent.

Note on sources and claims: Witnesses made a range of claims about adverse health events and systemic impacts following COVID‑era mandates. Those claims will require standard public‑record and medical follow‑up for verification; the committee invited written evidence and data in follow‑up submissions.","Citizens, health professionals and advocates urged the Judiciary Committee to pass bills protecting medical decision‑making and banning coercive mandates, citing COVID-era employment and education mandates that led to firings, lost educational opportunities and reported injuries.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6207831,"Proposals to ban deceptive interrogation tactics and require recordings draw broad support",985,5123000,6108000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8&start=5123&end=6108","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8/thumbnail_5123000.jpg","/articles/6207831/Massachusetts/Proposals-to-ban-deceptive-interrogation-tactics-and-require-recordings-draw-broad-support","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6207831-0806b14d74efe6598233b8faf0b2bb35/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437902&Signature=GsvVDQRjR00Il8uE0Dl9~lcJxx73GBOdwSAGLDX4Y78F6SaEKGWB5RznoCHastto96VTrf0kKpy3xwVfbFWdOQzat3XUSSmUaMK8P~ixMnmWNTs6UUsJP5KXf9ylckjnAAiU-fW3vc7ZZAQ8Epjqzj33C8WwX~8h5D6KIKGxlN5XdfnUT3S-hqhZ55J62K6CvVA8PpasXSmKCIG8Z14EGSrJrKFMeD77whZ2uAgmD5m1q1D7QtsYeBhMfttcn-49l8sGtp9KC12Z7LMzMM7pFxHX2sB4zLK~gY1swM-xo8ge7orpxeKymAc0jRLSaZKnAg4LDuyjnX4DIFL9TkCznA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A bipartisan group of advocates, exonerees and law enforcement consultants urged the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to pass bills that would prohibit deceptive interrogation tactics and require audio‑video recording of custodial interrogations, arguing those measures reduce false confessions and wrongful convictions.

Why it matters: Testimony cited decades of research and high‑profile wrongful‑conviction cases in Massachusetts and nationally; supporters said recording and banning deception would protect innocent people and improve investigative reliability.

The hearing brought together former defendants who say they falsely confessed, public defenders, innocence‑advocacy groups, and law enforcement trainers. Jeff Richards of the Committee for Public Counsel Services described cases in which traumatized adolescents were coerced into statements without counsel. “Young people waive those rights 90% of the time,” Richards said, and juveniles are more likely to falsely confess than adults.

Exonerees described interrogation practices that they say broke down vulnerable people. Eddie Lowry, wrongfully convicted at age 22, told the committee he was interrogated for two days, was “so exhausted by all this battering, I just wanted out of this situation. I just told them what they wanted to hear.” Lowry and others argued that recording interrogations and banning deceptive promises of leniency or false evidence would protect the innocent and improve prosecutorial outcomes.

Alan Hirsch, a longtime interrogation researcher and consultant, told the committee that both “confrontation” (telling suspects they are definitely guilty or citing false evidence) and “minimization” (suggesting confessing will result in lesser consequences) are the interrogation methods that most often produce false confessions. He said those techniques do not reliably distinguish guilty from innocent suspects.

Law enforcement voices at the hearing were mixed. Some retired detectives and trainers testified that departments should adopt research‑backed, non‑deceptive interrogation models and that recording interviews helps accountability and training. Others pointed to practical issues—equipment, rural coverage, and the timing of arrests—but many witnesses said those logistical concerns have workable solutions and do not justify leaving interrogations unrecorded.

Several witnesses urged the committee to advance bills that would: (1) prohibit deception in juvenile and custodial interrogations, (2) require recorded interrogations, and (3) ensure counsel or a qualified adult is present for juvenile questioning. Supporters said these measures are consistent with best practices recommended by national law‑enforcement organizations and would reduce wrongful convictions.

Ending: The committee heard multiple personal accounts, expert testimony and policy arguments; no vote was taken during the hearing, but advocates asked for a favorable report to give judges and prosecutors clearer rules and to help prevent false confessions.","At a Judiciary Committee hearing, exonerees, defense lawyers and police practices experts urged banning deceptive tactics in interrogations and recording custodial questioning to reduce false confessions and wrongful convictions.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6207836,"Advocates tell judiciary committee to expand juvenile diversion and judge discretion",8931,954000,9885000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8&start=954&end=9885","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8/thumbnail_954000.jpg","/articles/6207836/Massachusetts/Advocates-tell-judiciary-committee-to-expand-juvenile-diversion-and-judge-discretion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6207836-f6076f490c1bdbe67d268ea6d684c246/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437902&Signature=P4xB6FmYH-31MPKzNAGcXRJY2h2BkQR~8~vRqKxfv3GMm17tvwALWF12sARuikfKLyj~7w7EBjwfi4CUtxIZlvwct2i0Sep7ywJ3tcMzIpNE3rMe1hx0MTOMTUgzad~YXF0pVNRj58xaXiVWHJsAg2GXGQPDBJBGrME9B3-lOJ6ekcBMBq~L8GfhWlbzgjB7jY0fIrtqwoxFcxn9jdzz9HVuNuSXLrnw4ZbbbxuL3godz4DCLNpaBq5QQunxokpmWfy3Wf-OTStI4A~yIR7KQsYd3PetEAimXrIqpdg19vF8cyHCX91D6PtPxNF9b~RlMZW6xTeORRNTVCXelUr9CA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Advocates and lawmakers urged the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to expand judicial authority to divert juveniles from the court system, telling the panel that diversion yields better outcomes and reduces racial disparities.

Why it matters: Supporters said expanded diversion would reduce unnecessary juvenile records and detention, connect young people to community services, and ease collateral harms that make long-term success more difficult.

Senator Becca R. Cream (testifying for Senate bill 10 51) and representatives of juvenile justice organizations said the 2018 Criminal Justice Reform Act allowed pre‑arraignment diversion but left categorical exclusions that prevent judges from considering diversion for many offenses. Senator Cream said the bill “would expand access to diversion for offenses depending on the facts of the case,” allowing judges to evaluate whether a youth would be better served by community‑based supervision and services.

Sana Fadel of Citizens for Juvenile Justice testified that last year juvenile court data showed many young people receive a juvenile record even when they are not adjudicated delinquent, and that Black and Latino youth remain overrepresented in system involvement. “The bill gives judges greater flexibility to consider diversion for young people today who are statutorily ineligible,” Fadel said.

Court and service‑provider witnesses said service availability has been a concern for judges, but that the Massachusetts Youth Diversion Program (a state‑funded program launched in 2021) has expanded capacity. Melissa Threadgill of the Office of the Child Advocate told the committee the program now operates in most DA districts and that in 2024 “88 percent of youth completed the program,” evidence she said supports judges using diversion when appropriate.

Union and community groups also testified. The Boston Teachers Union and community advocates urged an end to juvenile fingerprinting and aggressive information sharing and asked for diversion rather than punitive responses. Witnesses described local programs that produced higher graduation rates for referred students than traditional processing.

The committee heard that expanding diversion would not require judges to divert every case; rather, it would allow individualized consideration based on case facts and youth needs. Supporters asked for a favorable report so the Legislature can consider statutory language to expand eligibility and reduce disparities.

Ending: Proponents described diversion as a public safety investment that keeps youth connected to school and services while lowering the likelihood of future justice involvement; the committee did not take a vote during the hearing.","Proponents of bills to expand pre‑arraignment juvenile diversion told the Joint Judiciary Committee that judicial discretion could reduce racial disparities and unnecessary court contact for young people, and pointed to state-funded diversion programs as evidence supports.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6207841,"Chelsea officials and teachers urge law change after juveniles’ fingerprints led to ICE detentions",367,2953000,3320000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8&start=2953&end=3320","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3752442-c99353f60bf95e98559e9785468805d8/thumbnail_2953000.jpg","/articles/6207841/Massachusetts/Chelsea-officials-and-teachers-urge-law-change-after-juveniles-fingerprints-led-to-ICE-detentions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6207841-a3da5e5d4008edb1beea22e3424b929c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437902&Signature=IaS9NUoeC6YqOuod3It3CWIdHR5B0QrmnI2eSN1qrRHx8b6SIiQlA5Cse062TUvczTcsclywz1o~qk3~sW3xt-yiSiuRHHswxgAwmlDy2sggDkvyCB9rZ0puzOv9F1RTCDPTfRuNVAfTY6kytnmSaXf9wqrrvNpd4rp~J74bRnaG1hwjO9XO2ItfIEwKSFQ1yP2BMaR4r45pOvH3kmRA0U7LmyxURFbOgTBABQqn2sAq8WqkHZ90k~sjIve0tYPbRzxlUjJ8GuLjtd8QYXpoMt8sd29uzWDktXnormKTRQxASXOjhxIW2qQmKc3TUelL6KdwVv7LqICdUIG~l85m~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chelsea school and community leaders urged the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to bar automatic sharing of juvenile fingerprint records with federal authorities after a wave of deportation-related detentions in the city.

At a committee hearing, Catherine Anderson, president of the Chelsea Teachers Union, said fingerprinting of arrested students sent data “straight to the FBI, and therefore ICE,” which allowed federal officers to appear at local police stations and students’ homes within minutes. “The speed of this domino effect was chilling,” Anderson said.

Why it matters: Witnesses said the current practice breaks trust between immigrant families and local public safety institutions, discourages victims and witnesses from coming forward, and can produce family separation without local due process. Multiple speakers asked the committee to adopt legislation that would prevent juvenile arrest fingerprinting from being disseminated to federal agencies and to expand avenues for expungement so young people and families are not tracked by federal systems.

At the hearing, Sarah Neville, a member of the Chelsea School Committee, described six minors detained by ICE in a six-week period in Chelsea, a two‑square‑mile city she said sits close to a large FBI facility. “When an individual is arrested and booked, their fingerprints are instantaneously shared with the FBI, and this is what allows ICE agents access to the information,” Neville testified. She said ICE then “showed up at the children's homes afterwards,” creating terror among siblings and parents.

Roberto Jimenez, a Chelsea city councilor, said constituents called him “furious” after ICE removals following school arrests and that the episode “destroyed progress” the city had made building trust between immigrant families and local police. “Even though the policies are not allowing this to happen, it is how the community perceives it,” Jimenez said.

Teachers described immediate local impacts. Vanessa Mendoza Mercado, vice president of the Chelsea Teachers Union, told the committee that students are still developing and that “one person's actions should not compromise the safety of whole families.” Michael Sanabria, an 18-year-old youth worker from Chelsea, recounted a recent incident in which two undocumented teens were fingerprinted after a BB-gun episode; he said ICE arrived in roughly 30 minutes and families were terrified.

Legal and policy advocates urged parallel changes. Laura Alffring of the Committee for Public Counsel Services testified in support of bills expanding juvenile expungement eligibility and prohibiting dissemination of juvenile arrest fingerprinting to the FBI. Greater Boston Legal Services and the Massachusetts Immigrant Collaborative also spoke in favor of laws to keep juvenile records local and to make expungement more accessible.

Office of the Child Advocate staff and statewide juvenile justice advocates emphasized that keeping juvenile matters local would not block legitimate local prosecutions but would reduce the risk of collateral federal immigration consequences for families. Melissa Threadgill from the Office of the Child Advocate told the committee that the state’s youth diversion and expungement reforms are intended to reduce long-term harm and that sharing juvenile arrest data with federal agencies undermines those goals.

What the bills would do: Testimony during the hearing referenced bills that would (1) prohibit dissemination of juvenile fingerprint or arrest data to federal agencies, and (2) expand eligibility for expungement of juvenile records, including non-convictions, while maintaining exceptions for the most serious offenses. Witnesses pointed to models in other states that block federal dissemination of juvenile biometric records.

Opponents at the hearing were minimal; much of the testimony from law enforcement and prosecutors emphasized preserving public safety while enabling local discretion. Several speakers said local police and school discipline procedures would still operate under the proposed changes; they characterized the policy change as limiting federal access only to juvenile biometric data rather than preventing local enforcement.

The committee did not take a vote; witnesses asked the Judiciary Committee to report the measures favorably so the Legislature can consider statutory changes during the session.

Ending: Advocates told the committee passage would protect immigrant families, preserve school trust, and shield juveniles from lifelong federal records stemming from routine school arrests while still allowing local authorities to pursue appropriate juvenile accountability measures.","Teachers, school officials and city leaders told the Joint Committee on the Judiciary that automatic sharing of juvenile arrest fingerprint data with federal agencies has led to rapid ICE detentions in Chelsea and urged legislation to stop dissemination and expand juvenile expungement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers hear bill to bar minors from seafood processing after federal investigation found underage workers

Hundreds testify in support of bills to protect bodily autonomy after COVID-era mandates

Proposals to ban deceptive interrogation tactics and require recordings draw broad support

Advocates tell judiciary committee to expand juvenile diversion and judge discretion

Chelsea officials and teachers urge law change after juveniles’ fingerprints led to ICE detentions