Michigan prosecutors are sounding off on a state Supreme Court decision this week that could release thousands of murderers from prison, retraumatizing the victims’ families.

“We’ve listened to survivors say they need certainty and finality in the sentences of the convicted criminals who took the lives of their loved ones,” Midland County Prosecutor J. Dee Brooks, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, told The Detroit News. “They have described the retraumatization that results from the never-ending litigation of these cases.

“The resentencing hearings resulting from this ruling will also require tremendous amounts of time and expense to prosecutors’ offices throughout the state,” Brooks said.

In a party-line 5-2 opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court’s liberal justices on Thursday ruled mandatory life sentences for 19- and 20-year-olds who commit first-degree murder are an “unconstitutionally cruel punishment” because their brains are not yet fully developed.

The decision follows a similar decision for 18-year-olds from the court in 2022.

“As applied to defendants who were 19 or 20 years old at the time of their crime, a mandatory (life without parole) sentence that does not allow for consideration of mitigating factors of youth or the potential for rehabilitation is a grossly disproportionate punishment,” Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote in the majority opinion.

The ruling means those murderers can now seek eligibility for parole through resentencing hearings, though prosecutors can still request life without parole.

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker told WXMI he believes the state’s highest court is asking the wrong questions when it comes to young murderers.

“The thing that is most frustrating is, they say, the mind hasn’t developed …,” Becker said. “The right question is, is (the mind) developed enough to know you shouldn’t kill somebody.”

“This is really a big change in the whole criminal justice system and how we deal with things,” Becker said, estimating his office will have to prepare for resentencing 20 to 30 impacted by the ruling over the next six months.

“We gotta follow the law. We have no choice,” Becker said. “We’ve done that for the juveniles and the 18-year-olds. I just hope at some point in time it stops. I mean they kind of denied, at this point in time, the 21-year-olds, but they kind of left it open that it could change down the road. So how long are we going to do this.”

Go Ad-Free, Get Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

“It’s gonna put more strain on, but that’s something we’ve done before, and it’s just something we have to deal with,” Becker said.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy told The News about 400 will need to be resentenced, and described the 180-day timeline for that set by the Supreme Court as “untenable.”

“The real impact of the decision will be felt by the family, friends and loved ones of the hundreds of victims who, after reaching a point of closure with the assurance that the killer would serve the remainder of his or her life in prison, will learn that the process is no longer over and their loved one’s murderer is now eligible for resentencing and probable future release,” Worthy said in a statement.

Brooks told The News the prosecutor’s association is still working with the Department of Corrections to develop a statewide tally of those impacted by the ruling.

“It’s going to pose a huge additional burden on the justice system and victims,” state Rep. Sarah Lightner, R-Springport, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said of the “terrible” decision. “How many people does this include? I don’t know yet.”

Republican Justices Elizabeth Clement and Brian Zahra argued in dissent that lawmakers, rather than judges, are tasked with changing the law.

First degree murder is “arguably the gravest offense under Michigan law, and it deserves the most severe sentence in Michigan,” Clement wrote.

“It is one thing for scientific evidence to justify a change in policy from the Legislature, and another thing for that same evidence to support a judicial finding that mandatory (life without parole) violates our Constitution,” the dissent read. “The bar for the latter is much higher, and I do not believe it has been met.”

“Courts should not reshape the law with every shift in scientific consensus, especially when it is the Michigan Constitution that is the subject of reshaping,” Clement wrote.

“First-degree murder is not impulsive,” Clement wrote. “It generally requires, by definition, premeditation and intent. A 19- or 20-year-old capable of planning and executing a murder is capable of understanding its consequences.

“And if they understand those consequences, then they can constitutionally bear the full weight of the law’s most severe punishment.”

Liberal Justice Richard Bernstein disagreed, and actually advocated for expanding the Supreme Court’s ruling to include any murderer under the age of 25.

“I would instead follow the thoughtful conclusions of the many scientific studies presented before us and relied upon in both Parks and these cases, and hold that the turning point for any test, be it a brightline rule or a shifting age-based presumption, starts at age 25 and not age 21,” Bernstein wrote.

Regardless, Democrats and allies who advocate for criminals are celebrating Thursday’s decision.

“Young people are especially deserving of second chances and individualized sentencing,” Liz Komar, attorney for The Sentencing Project, said in a statement. “This decision reflects a growing national movement recognizing that emerging adults deserve special sentencing consideration, and we hope that it will serve as a model to other states.”

“I think it is important to recognize that young people are young people,” state Sen. Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit, chair of the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee, told The News. “Being able to consider consequences and make appropriate decisions is not there in the same way that it is for adults.”