Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 120, § 6 (2026)

Liberty under supervision; confinement; reconfinement; revocation or modification of order; discharge

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 6. When a person has been committed to the department of youth services, it may after an objective consideration of all available information—

(a) Permit him his liberty under supervision and upon such conditions as it believes conducive to law-abiding conduct; or—

(b) Order his confinement under such conditions as it believes best designed for the protection of the public; or—

(c) Order reconfinement or renewed release as often as conditions indicate to be desirable; or—

(d) Revoke or modify any order, except an order of final discharge, as often as conditions indicate to be desirable; or—

(e) Discharge him from control with notice to the court, except as provided in section twelve, when it is satisfied that such discharge is consistent with the protection of the public.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Samuel S., a Juv., 69 N.E.3d 573 (Mass. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Samuel S., a Juv., 69 N.E.3d 573 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 9× “See G. L. c. 120, § 6. 9 Two of them explicitly *504 involve “confinement,” while three of them do not.”

United States v. Sansone, 90 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 120, § 6 (listing outcomes); see also Gibbons, 553 F.”

Kenniston v. Dep't of Youth Servs., 453 Mass. 179 (Mass. 2009). “120, § 18,] the control of the department over the person shall continue, subject to the provisions of this chapter; provided, however, unless the person is previously discharged in accordance with '[G. L. c. 120, § 6 (e)], the department shall discharge the person upon his…”

Commonwealth v. Rosenberg, 573 N.E.2d 949 (Mass. 1991). “The defendant’s third constitutional challenge is that the procedural differences between commitments under c. 120, §§ 16-20, and commitments under c.”

Commonwealth v. Thad T., 796 N.E.2d 869 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “See G. L. c. 120, § 6. It appears to us from the record that the juvenile has now attained the age of eighteen; therefore, we need not reach the question whether the banishment was constitutional or whether it met the requirements set forth in Commonwealth v.”

A Juv., 306 N.E.2d 822 (Mass. 1974). “925, § 42; G. L. c. 120, § 6, as amended through St.”

Commonwealth v. Lindberg, 102 N.E.3d 426 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “See G. L. c. 120, § 6 (a person who has been committed to DYS may be provided liberty "upon such conditions as it believes conducive to law-abiding conduct").”

Commonwealth v. Lindberg (Mass. App. Ct. 2020). “at 504 ; G. L. c. 120, § 6, a sentencing judge has no definitive way of knowing whether the youthful offender will be held in a secure or nonsecure facility for all, part, or none of the period of his or her commitment.”

Commonwealth v. Sonny S., a Juv. (Mass. 2026). “120, § 6 ("commitment to DYS can result in a variety of consequences for the juvenile -- some that look more like confinement, others less so").”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.