FALSE HOPE

19 PERCENT
1.3 PERCENT
IN 2015, THE PAROLE GA
GRANT RATE FOR
LIFERS IN GEORGIA WAS
11 PERCENT
IN OKLAHOMA,
FROM JULY 2015 TO
FEB. 2016, THE PAROLE
APPROVAL RATE FOR
VIOLENT OFFENDERS WAS
1.3 PERCENT
OK
THE AVERAGE PAROLE GRANT
RATE IN TEXAS FOR THOSE
CONVICTED OF CAPITAL
MURDER HAS BEEN
8 PERCENT
OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS
TX
OK
IN FLORIDA,
ONLY 0.5 %
OF PAROLE-ELIGIBLE PRISONERS
WERE GRANTED PAROLE IN 2015
FL
particularly for people serving life sentences or those
convicted
THE NEW
of violent
YORK
offenses.
2014 PAROLE
In 2015, Ohio’s parole board
decided 1,130 parole cases and granted parole
NYto just 104
APPROVAL RATE FOR
individuals (9.2 percent of parole decisions). 12 This was
VIOLENT OFFENDERS WAS
actually an increase from its parole approvals in 2014 (4.8
percent) 13 and in 2013 (4.2 percent). 14 In 2015, 366 individuals
in Florida were serving a parole-eligible life sentence
19 PERCENT
for an offense committed when they were under 18 years of
age. 15 Two (0.5 percent) were granted parole. 16
As legal scholar Sarah French Russell observes, “parole
boards have not been required to make the possibility
IN OKLAHOMA,
of parole release realistic for inmates,” 17 and they have
FROM JULY 2015 TO
OK
not done so on their own. One reason for the low parole
FEB. 2016, THE PAROLE
approval rates, even for those imprisoned as children, is
APPROVAL RATE FOR
the overwhelming focus in parole decision-making on the
VIOLENT OFFENDERS WAS
severity of the offense to exclusion of all other factors and
evidence 1.3 PERCENT
of rehabilitation. 18 In at least 30 states, the severity
or nature of the crime is an explicit factor that state parole
agencies can or must consider, 19 and this is not just a factor
among many to be checked off but the decisive factor. A
2008 survey of 47 state parole boards found that “the top
three [factors] are crime severity, crime type, and offender
criminal THE AVERAGE history.” PAROLE 20 These factors, GRANT which a TX prisoner can never
RATE change, IN outweigh TEXAS FOR or overshadow THOSE the things a prisoner can
change CONVICTED through OF growth CAPITAL and rehabilitation. The seriousness
of MURDER the offense HAS should BEEN be and is—if imperfectly—considered
by
8
the
PERCENT
court at sentencing, in determining the type of sentence
and its length, and also when a person will be eligible
for parole. But at the parole review, the focus on the severity
OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS
of the original offense obscures a meaningful parole examination
and release decision based on who the person is now
and the life they could live if released.
Christine Lockheart is a
49-year-old white woman
THE AVERAGE PAROLE GRANT who has TXbeen incarcerated
in Iowa since 1985.
RATE IN TEXAS FOR THOSE
CONVICTED OF CAPITAL Throughout her childhood,
MURDER HAS BEEN Ms. Lockheart received
8 PERCENT
inpatient and outpatient
mental health treatment.
When Ms. Lockheart was
OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS
17, her then-boyfriend
stabbed and killed a man
while Ms. Lockheart was
Christine Lockheart, who
was 17 at the time of her outside of the victim’s
offense, is serving a life house. 21 Now eligible for
sentence in Iowa.
parole post-Miller, Ms.
Lockheart has been repeatedly
denied parole, despite being at the lowest level security
available, working on a college degree, having numerous
jobs while incarcerated, having family support, and not
being considered at risk of reoffending according to the
state’s own risk assessment instrument. She has nonetheless
been denied parole based on the seriousness of her offense
and her “general attitude,” OKreferring to “relationship issues”
with her roommates, although she has had no violent
disciplinary infractions in her 30 years in prison. 22 When
Ms. Lockheart subsequently challenged her parole denial in
court, the parole board responded that the Miller mitigation
factors “are not necessarily relevant in the same way during
a parole release review.”
Richard Rivera, who was 16 at the time that he shot a police
officer in a botched robbery, has spent over 35 years in prison.
At the time of the crime, he was living with his mother, who
had a long history of psychiatric hospitalizations throughout
his childhood, 23 and his abusive stepfather. Mr. Rivera
says he had developed an addiction to cocaine by the time
OK
Richard Rivera, who was 16
at the time of his offense,
has been in prison for over
35 years.
he was 16, and he could
not read or write when he
went to prison. Reflecting
on the years leading up
to his crime and the deep
remorse and responsibility
he feels, Mr. Rivera says,
“The tragedy did not
happen in a vacuum. . . .
But my past is no excuse.” 24
Now 52, Mr. Rivera has
earned a Bachelor of Arts
degree from Syracuse
University, a master’s
degree from New York
Theological Seminary, and
a second bachelor’s degree from Bard College. But each time
he has been reviewed for parole, he has been denied based
on the nature of his crime. In September 2016, Mr. Rivera
was again denied parole, this time for his prior disciplinary
history (Mr. Rivera’s last ticket, over two years ago, was for
failure to report an injury).
“
Rather than talk about
what would make me a
candidate for parole, we
talked about my confession.”
—David McCallum
“You have to remain hopeful,” says Mr. Rivera. “So you basically
have to live in denial. You hope the dice are going to
roll your way. It’s like being a gambler in a terrible game.” 25
David McCallum, arrested
at 16, spent 30 years in
prison for a crime he did
not commit.
REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
David McCallum, who was
16 when he was arrested
and wrongfully convicted
of murder, spent almost
30 years in prison before
his exoneration. Despite
his model conduct, Mr.
McCallum was repeatedly
denied parole based on
the severity of his offense.
Particularly damaging
was his insistence on his
innocence. 26 “Rather than
talk about what happened
in prison that would
make me a candidate for
parole, we talked about my
confession,” recalls Mr. McCallum. 27 His co-defendant, also
innocent, died in prison.
Beyond the offense, it is often unclear to people applying
for parole what—if anything—the parole board has considered
and based its decision on. States impose few required
procedures on parole boards, and courts have allowed them
to ignore or bypass whatever guidelines do exist. Operating
in obscurity but with tremendous power, parole boards
provide limited information to the public about their
standards, conduct, or results. 28 Yet, the hearing or review
determines the ultimate length of a sentence—a power particularly
significant in states like Utah, which has an entirely
indeterminate sentencing system; Hawaii, where the parole
board has the unique authority to set the minimum term of
4 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FALSE HOPE: HOW PAROLE SYSTEMS FAIL YOUTH SERVING EXTREME SENTENCES
5