FALSE HOPE

well as intellectual disabilities (such as low IQ, traumatic
brain injury, or specific learning disabilities). The term also
encompasses people who have processing disorders such as
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism.
For the majority of individuals interviewed, the controlling
offense for which they were convicted was a homicide crime.
One hundred and six individuals were convicted of murder
either in the first or second degree; one individual was convicted
of attempted murder, and one person was convicted
of assault with intent to commit murder. Of the 106 homicide-related
cases, based on self-reporting and our review of
their case files, at least 20 of those interviewed were not the
primary actor or triggerman in the homicide for which they
were convicted.
Of the remaining 18 individuals interviewed, for whom a
homicide crime was not the controlling offense, eight were
convicted of armed or aggravated robbery and/or burglary;
five were convicted of robbery and assault; and one was
convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated
sodomy. One additional individual was convicted of sexual
assault and kidnapping. (In total, four individuals interviewed
were convicted of a sex offense, including two cases
where the controlling offense was homicide.) Two individuals
(both women) were convicted of injury to a child. One
individual was convicted of engaging in organized criminal
activity (gang-related). Moreover, six interviewees convicted
of homicide offenses have either been formally exonerated
or are pursuing innocence claims with counsel.
INDIVIDUAL RECORDS REVIEWED
The ACLU requested and collected where possible all parole
decisions, court records, pre-sentence investigation reports,
disciplinary reports, risk assessment scores (actuarial determinations
of a person’s risk to reoffend), and rehabilitative
programming certificates. These records were requested
directly from those interviewed, from courts, and from the
appropriate Department of Corrections through public records
requests. What information was publically available or
existent varied by state, county, and facility. For example, in
Massachusetts, the parole board posts its decisions and reasons
for approving or denying parole for individuals serving
life sentences on its website. By contrast, in Texas, the parole
board decisions available to those applying for parole as well
as their attorneys and the public list only the decision code
and redact the parole guidance (risk assessment) score. In
Michigan, although prisoners cannot request their own files
through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we were
able to request and receive prisoners’ parole decisions, work
evaluations, disciplinary records, and pre-sentence investigation
reports through our own public records requests and
to share those materials with the individuals interviewed.
The ACLU made similar requests to facilities in New York
for individuals interviewed for this report. For individuals
incarcerated in Iowa, the ACLU of Iowa requested their original
sentencing and more recent resentencing transcripts.
years for which information was available, and how data is
maintained or organized. Given the significant differences
in the data received and reviewed by the ACLU, where data
from these FOIAs is cited in this report, we have included
an endnote with the state agency’s own description of the
data provided. In addition to statistical information, the
ACLU requested policies and procedures utilized by each
state parole board and governing issues such as guidance on
young offenders, assistance for individuals with disabilities,
and how to weigh disciplinary infractions and understand
“rehabilitation.” Full responses to ACLU requests are available
upon request.
For 22 individuals interviewed, based on both self-reporting
and our review of their criminal case files, the offense for
which they are or were serving a prison sentence is their first
conviction as either a juvenile or an adult.
Out of respect for the privacy of the victims and their families,
we did not include their names in this report.
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
The ACLU requested data from all 50 states, as well as the
federal government, regarding the number of individuals
serving life and other long sentences for offenses committed
in their youth; the demographic characteristics of that
population, including race and sex; and parole grant rates.
We received some responsive documents from 34 states,
with most states responding that the information requested—particularly
data regarding the age at offense but also
parole rates by offender group—was not maintained. A
sample FOIA request submitted for this report is available
in Appendix C. States varied in the data they provided depending
on what information they maintained, how crime
categories and offender groups were identified, the range of
Jenn Ackerman
16 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FALSE HOPE: HOW PAROLE SYSTEMS FAIL YOUTH SERVING EXTREME SENTENCES
17