Emmanuel Okoro was 15 when he stabbed Markeen Starks to death outside a New Year’s Eve party in Brockton on December 31, 2007. He was convicted of second-degree murder in Plymouth Superior Court on December 28, 2010 and sentenced to life. This week the Parole Board voted unanimously to release him, with six months of electronic monitoring, mental health counseling, drug and alcohol testing, a residential program, and no contact with the Starks family.
Decisions like that one are now routine in Massachusetts, and most people do not understand why. A life sentence for murder in this state is not always life, a 2024 court decision made hundreds of prisoners eligible who were not before, and the board that decides has rules most of the public has never read. Here is how parole for murder actually works.
Two kinds of life
Chapter 265, section 2 draws the line. First-degree murder is punished by “imprisonment in the state prison for life,” and the person “shall not be eligible for parole.” Second-degree murder is also life, but the person “shall be eligible for parole after the term of years fixed by the court,” which under chapter 279, section 24 is a minimum between 15 and 25 years. A judge sentencing for second-degree murder is choosing when the first parole hearing happens, not whether there is one.
So “life with the possibility of parole” is the second-degree sentence, and the shorthand “granted parole after 15 years” means the judge set the minimum at 15 and the prisoner served it. Okoro served roughly 18 years counting pretrial detention, was denied at his first hearing in 2023 for fighting and disciplinary reports, and was granted at a reconsideration hearing in April 2026 after earning his high school equivalency, staying discipline-free, completing programming, and receiving a favorable psychological evaluation.
Who decides, and by what vote
The Parole Board is a seven-member body appointed by the Governor. For a life sentence, chapter 127, section 133A requires a hearing before the full board, and parole may be granted only “by a vote of two-thirds of its members.” A simple majority is not enough. If parole is denied, the board must reconsider “at least once in each ensuing five year period,” and it can set a shorter review, as it did for Okoro.
The statute requires notice at least thirty days before the hearing to the Attorney General, the district attorney who prosecuted the case, the police chief where the crime occurred, and the victims. All of them may appear and be heard. The district attorney almost always opposes.
The standard is whether the prisoner has shown, by rehabilitation and conduct, that release is “compatible with the welfare of society.” That is the phrase the board used for Okoro. It is a forward-looking judgment about risk, not a reassessment of guilt, and the board’s written decisions, which are public, typically recite the crime, the institutional record, programming, the psychological evaluation, and the release plan.
The 2024 decision that changed the population
For decades, first-degree murder meant no parole for anyone. That began to change with juveniles. In 2013, in Diatchenko, the Supreme Judicial Court held that life without parole for anyone under 18 was cruel or unusual punishment under the state constitution, and the Legislature responded with parole eligibility after 20 to 30 years for juvenile first-degree murderers.
On January 11, 2024, in Commonwealth v. Mattis, the SJC extended the principle to “emerging adults,” holding that life without parole is unconstitutional for anyone who was 18, 19 or 20 at the time of the offense. The court relied on neurological research on brain development and on the Legislature’s own line-drawing: people under 21 cannot buy alcohol, carry a firearm, or become police officers. The decision was retroactive.
The effect was immediate. More than 200 prisoners serving life without parole for first-degree murder became eligible for parole hearings, roughly 70 of them from Suffolk County alone. According to reporting at the end of 2025, the board had granted parole to 39 of them, denied 12, and had 159 decisions pending.
The argument about it
Prosecutors have objected in public. Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz said “the blanket granting of parole without any significant recognition or consideration of the suffering of the victims is at best ill-considered.” Bristol District Attorney Thomas Quinn III warned that the board might treat Mattis as guaranteeing parole rather than permitting it, in cases involving “brutal and premeditated murders.”
The board’s answer is that each decision follows “careful deliberation to protect public safety,” considers the victims, and turns on rehabilitation and suitability. Its grant rate for Mattis cases, 39 of 51 decided, is far higher than its overall rate, which the board attributes to the population: people who have served two and three decades, many of whom have long records of programming and no recent discipline. Critics read the same number as the board treating eligibility as entitlement.
What is not in dispute is that the decisions are individual, written, and appealable only in the narrow sense that a denial can be reviewed for error. There is no appeal of a grant. A district attorney who disagrees can say so, and can oppose the next one.
What parole is
Parole is not the end of the sentence. A lifer on parole is serving a life sentence in the community, under supervision, for life. The conditions in Okoro’s case are typical: GPS monitoring for an initial period, testing, treatment, a residential program to start, a no-contact order, reporting requirements, and a work or program requirement. A violation returns the person to prison, and the board can revoke parole for conduct that would not be a crime.
Which is why “granted parole” and “released” are not the same sentence. Okoro will leave prison for a residential program, not for home, and the board’s permit can be pulled at any point for the rest of his life.
Can someone convicted of murder get parole in Massachusetts?
Second-degree murder carries life with parole eligibility after 15 to 25 years, set by the judge. First-degree murder carries life without parole for adults 21 and over. Under Diatchenko (2013) and Mattis (2024), anyone under 21 at the time of the offense is parole-eligible even for first-degree murder.
What vote does the Parole Board need for a lifer?
Two-thirds of the board’s members, after a hearing with notice to the district attorney, police and victims, under G.L. c. 127, § 133A.
What did Commonwealth v. Mattis decide?
On January 11, 2024, the SJC held that life without parole is unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights for offenders who were 18 to 20 at the time of the crime, extending its 2013 juvenile ruling. Over 200 prisoners became eligible for parole.
How many Mattis prisoners have been paroled?
As of late 2025, 39 granted, 12 denied, and 159 decisions pending, according to Boston.com’s review of board decisions.
Who is Emmanuel Okoro?
A Brockton man convicted of second-degree murder in 2010 for the 2007 stabbing of 19-year-old Markeen Starks when Okoro was 15. Denied parole in 2023, he was granted it unanimously this week with conditions including electronic monitoring and a residential program.
Does parole end the sentence?
No. A paroled lifer remains under supervision for life and can be returned to prison for violating conditions.
Okoro decision facts as reported by MassLive and the Fall River Reporter, September 2026, from the Parole Board’s written decision. Mattis-era figures and prosecutor statements from Boston.com, December 28, 2025. Statutes read at malegislature.gov. Commonwealth v. Mattis, SJC-11693 (Jan. 11, 2024), verified against CourtListener. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.