FALSE HOPE

old. Mr. Stack was last reviewed in 2006, after he had served
almost 28 years in prison. By that time he had earned his
GED, associate degree, and a Bachelor of Science degree; had
participated as a student and a facilitator in several institutional
rehabilitation programs; and had numerous letters of
support from community members and former counselors
and caseworkers, as well as a letter of forgiveness from
the victim’s widow. 50 The Utah parole board denied Mr.
Stack parole and scheduled his next hearing for December
2018—12 years after his 2006 review. 51
These denials and accompanying “setoffs,” where the person
is scheduled for a subsequent parole review potentially
many years in the future, are particularly disheartening
for those who have already served decades in prison before
their initial review. In Georgia, individuals sentenced to life
imprisonment after 2006 must serve at least 30 years before
being reviewed by the parole board. 52 In Texas and Nebraska,
individuals previously sentenced to juvenile life without parole
(JLWOP) may be reviewed by the parole board but only
after they have first served a mandatory 40 years in prison. 53
Many other Texas prisoners must serve a mandatory 30-35
years before becoming eligible for parole. 54
Deon Williams, who was
16 at the time of his crime,
must serve 30 years before
his first parole review.
Deon Williams, a Black
man serving a life sentence
in Texas, was 16 at the time
he was arrested and then
convicted of the murder
of an older woman,
whose house he and his
friends were burgling. Mr.
Williams, who was not the
triggerman and was younger
than his co-defendants,
has served 22 years of a
60-year sentence. Now 39,
he will not be considered
for parole until late 2024,
after first serving 30 years.
In sum, by handing to parole boards the ultimate responsibility
for deciding whether a young offender has grown,
matured, and been rehabilitated enough to be released, states
may have solved their constitutional sentencing problem in
name only—and given false hope to thousands of individuals
In Texas, Colorado, and
Nebraska, individuals
previously sentenced to
JLWOP must serve 40 years
before parole review.
serving long sentences since they were children. Unless states
significantly reform the parole system to ensure a fair, transparent,
and forward-looking review, many people who were
young at the time of their offense will continue to spend the
majority of their lives in prison, with devastating costs to
them, their families, and our communities. Releasing these
prisoners as old men and women is not only unnecessary to
protect public safety but also means that these individuals
have little hope of finding work—to support themselves
and the families that have stood by them—once released. It
means releasing people to die but not to rebuild their lives,
contribute to their communities, and atone for the harm
their actions caused their victims’ and their own families.
C. EXTREME SENTENCES,
DIMINISHING PROSPECTS FOR
RELEASE, AND THE COSTS OF
DELAY
The failure to release people who have already served significant
time in prison and grown and changed—despite
being raised in a violent correctional environment with few
rehabilitative services—is not just a human tragedy but also
feeds the United States’ expensive and bloated reliance on
mass incarceration. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent
cases on extreme sentences have focused on just punishments
for those who were young at the time of their crime,
thousands of other prisoners around the United States are
serving life and other extended prison terms with similarly
limited prospects of release. Not only does the United States
have the highest incarceration rate in the world, 55 but U.S.
prisoners now serve longer sentences than ever before, with
shrinking possibilities for release.
According to the Urban Institute, from 1998 to 2010, the
factor that contributed the most to the expansion of the
federal prison population was length of stay. 56 Similarly,
a recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts showed that,
between 1983 and 2013, the United States became 165
percent more punitive in the length of sentences people
receive, despite declining crime rates, as states “increased
criminal penalties, eliminated parole, and made other policy
changes that collectively sent more offenders to prison and
kept them there longer.” 57 Over half of the state prison population
is incarcerated for a violent offense, 58 and sentence
lengths for “violent” crimes in the United States have also
increased dramatically, despite declining rates of violent
crime. According to one study, between 1981 and 2000, the
length of stay (meaning not just the imposed sentence but
the actual number of years a person serves in prison) for a
murder crime increased by 238 percent. 59 These sentences
have expanded without a real conversation about their
necessity, or about the harm they inflict on prisoners, their
families, and their communities. As former New York parole
commissioner Thomas Grant observes, “There has to be
some type of reasoned discussion about how long is long
enough. Does everything have to be sentenced to life?” 60
Not only does the United
States have the highest
incarceration rate in the
world, but U.S. prisoners now
serve longer sentences than
ever before, with shrinking
possibilities for release.
Moreover, even as these punitive sentences continue to
grow in frequency and length, several studies demonstrate
that recidivism rates among people convicted of violent
offenses are significantly lower than recidivism among
people convicted of nonviolent offenses, 61 and that people
previously convicted of a violent offense are very unlikely
to return to prison for another serious crime. 62 As The New
York Times observed, the data on our prison systems reflect
an unavoidable truth: “Big cuts in incarceration must come
at the state level, and they will have to involve rethinking
of sentences for violent criminals as well as unarmed drug
users and burglars.” 63
Parole systems are unlikely to start releasing people without
political support, compulsory guidance, and a clear mandate
to look beyond the original offense and instead to who
the person is now. States once viewed parole as an essential
part of penal policy, not simply as a management tool that
could limit overcrowding and the costs of incarceration,
but also because it provided an incentive for and evidence
of rehabilitation. As legal scholar Cecelia Klingele observes,
it wasn’t just that release was expected but that “failure to
secure parole before the termination of the sentence was a
sign that the system had failed to achieve its rehabilitative
ends.” 64
For parole boards, understaffed and overwhelmed, there
is little incentive to release a person convicted of a serious
offense when the risk—however remote—that the individual
could reoffend looms above their decision. That remote
danger may weigh more heavily than even a well-documented
history of good institutional conduct, rehabilitation,
and community support. As law professor W. David Ball
observes:
Officials are also not directed to look at the costs
and benefits of continued incarceration; they are
only directed to evaluate the risks of release. …
Without considering the benefits of granting parole,
there is no incentive for parole boards to vote
in favor of release. 65
Parole board members may never know about the success
stories—people convicted of serious crimes who, once
released, have become successful community leaders,
8 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FALSE HOPE: HOW PAROLE SYSTEMS FAIL YOUTH SERVING EXTREME SENTENCES
9