%3Ciframe%20class%3D%22media-youtube-player%22%20width%3D%22580%22%20height%3D%22324%22%20title%3D%22For%20People%20with%20Disabilities%20on%20Parole%20and%20Probation%2C%20Accessible%20Communication%20is%20Essential%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2FZ6oV5gHdaXk%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26amp%3Bcontrols%3D1%26amp%3Bmodestbranding%3D1%26amp%3Brel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcolor%3Dwhite%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%26playsinline%3D1%22%20name%3D%22For%20People%20with%20Disabilities%20on%20Parole%20and%20Probation%2C%20Accessible%20Communication%20is%20Essential%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20id%3D%22For%20People%20with%20Disabilities%20on%20Parole%20and%20Probation%2C%20Accessible%20Communication%20is%20Essential%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3EVideo%20of%20For%20People%20with%20Disabilities%20on%20Parole%20and%20Probation%2C%20Accessible%20Communication%20is%20Essential%3C%2Fiframe%3E

Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com.

At a meeting with her parole officer in Georgia this summer, “Jill” — who is deaf — was arrested for violating the conditions of her parole. She was accused of failing to attend a drug treatment program. In reality, Jill had contacted multiple programs and was turned away from each one as they refused to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters. Federal law requires the parole system to make required programs accessible to people with disabilities, but instead this failure led, in part, to Jill being reincarcerated.

This is just one example of how violations of disability rights laws and breakdowns in communication prevent deaf, deafblind, deaf-disabled, and hard of hearing people from meeting the conditions of their release — if they even can understand what those conditions are.

By design, once someone with a disability is entangled in the criminal legal system, they are more likely to stay trapped. They cycle in and out of prison and jail, experiencing isolation and communication deprivation along the way. When released on parole or probation, they face complex and everchanging rules, exorbitant fees, and the constant threat of reincarceration for minor violations. But due to sparse compliance with federal laws that prohibit disability discrimination, disabled people are at heightened risk of “violating” rules they did not know or comprehend.

Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.

In 2019, we filed a lawsuit against the Georgia Department of Community Supervision (GDCS) to highlight their abject failure to provide communication access to deaf and hard of hearing people on probation and parole. Deaf people in Georgia cannot get information about the parole and probation rules they must follow, nor access to the services they need. As a result, many live in fear of being sent back to prison for months or even years. This is not only absurd and unfair, it is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution.

Last month, we won class certification. For Jill, this win means that her case will not only continue on to trial, but that she can now represent other people like her — those who are deaf or hard of hearing — across the state currently serving probation or parole now or in the future.

Since the start of Jill’s parole, GDCS had repeatedly denied or failed to provide the accommodations necessary to communicate effectively with her. Like many people who are deaf and born into hearing families, Jill was denied full access to ASL — or any language — in the first few years of her life. To be able to effectively convey information presented in English, the law requires that service providers who are not fluent in ASL — such as counselors or parole officers — communicate to Jill through an ASL interpreter and a linguistic specialist (also known as a “Deaf interpreter”). This specialist must be trained in overcoming the challenges posed by Jill’s early language deprivation. Jill had communicated this need to her probation officer many times. But when she was arrested at her meeting this summer, her parole officer relied solely on an ASL interpreter on a small cell phone screen who repeatedly struggled to understand Jill. Jill could not understand what she was being accused of, provide information in her defense, or ask the parole officer any meaningful questions.

Then, while in custody, Jill’s parole officer arrived at the jail and again used a video interpreter on her cell phone. Despite not providing adequate communication, the parole officer required Jill to sign a complex legal document that Jill only came to understand days later, when Jill’s disability lawyers reviewed the document with her using the appropriate ASL/Deaf interpreters. She had not known that signing the document meant she was waiving her right to a preliminary hearing. Eventually, although she had been denied effective communication and criminal defense counsel throughout this entire process, Jill was sent back to prison with many questions about what happened and how long she would be reincarcerated.

Jill’s story is horrific, but far from unique. Many of our clients — and even more people across the country — have experienced the serious consequences of a system failing to comply with the laws that would give them a fighting chance to rebuild their lives.

“Mike” was also incarcerated after his probation officer failed to provide appropriate accommodations. His officer was made aware many times that using in-person interpreters was necessary for Mike, who is deafblind and has limited vision. In late 2020, Mike had a routine meeting with the officer, who used an interpreter on a laptop to inform Mike that he was getting drug tested. Mike had not experienced a drug test before and struggled to see the video interpreter to understand what was happening.

Then, despite the laptop being available, the probation officer refused to use even the ineffective video interpreter to communicate further after the drug test, but instead tried to communicate to Mike in writing about what was happening. Like anyone who relies on a different language, Mike could not make sense of the written English. The probation officer then forced Mike to sign an acknowledgement form admitting he had violated his probation. Although Mike could not understand the complicated language on the form, he signed it because the officer told him he had to. He was then arrested and transported to jail.

At the jail, the probation officer again failed to bring an interpreter in person, and communication was further challenged by the thick glass pane dividing Mike from his probation officer, glare on the laptop screen, and wobbling from the officer holding the laptop up to the window. Amid this confusing interaction, Mike was made to sign a document admitting that he violated his probation and agreeing to serve two months in jail. This consent order was written in complex legal jargon that Mike could not understand. His probation officer did not read the form out loud in its entirety so that it could be interpreted into ASL, did not explain Mike’s right to counsel and right to a contested hearing, and did not inform Mike that he had a right not to sign.

The document Mike signed was filed with the court, sending him back to jail for two months. Even after later recognizing the mistakes he made at the meetings, Mike’s parole officer claimed the situation was not typical simply because Mike was deaf. The system repeatedly puts the onus for effective communication on deaf people, rarely remedying any of its own errors and harms.

Jill and Mike’s cases are not anomalies. The policies and practices of this supervision system harm deaf and hard of hearing people every day in Georgia and across the nation. Parole and probation agencies neglect their responsibilities under federal disability laws, and in doing so, they deprive deaf people on supervision of a fair chance to rehabilitate and rebuild their lives.

Despite their immense trauma, our clients continue to share their stories with the hope of changing the system for people like them. They receive no financial rewards or preferential treatment with their cases or during their supervision, as their stories demonstrate. Their hope is that their work will help create a world where those who follow them will not experience the same injustices. We hope that you’ll join us in that fight, too.

Shawn Jensen was 17 years old and escaping an abusive foster family when he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1966. One year later, Shawn was sent to Vietnam, where he faced combat and was wounded twice. By December 1967, Shawn’s superior infantry skills set him apart and he was trained as a member of the elite Reconnaissance Battalion, where he and a team of seven to eight men were sent on multiple long-range patrols deep into the jungles of Southeast Asia to gather intelligence, often without any reinforcements. Shawn again faced combat, danger, and death, and was repeatedly exposed to Agent Orange. For his service in Vietnam, he earned multiple military awards, including a Purple Heart.

Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.

Shawn returned to the United States after 13 months of combat and recon, met and married his wife, Rhonda, and attempted to rebuild his life after the war. After Shawn returned, he began to have flashbacks to times of combat with enemy soldiers as well as experiencing many other symptoms of what we now know as PTSD.

Shawn recognized that something was wrong, and he and Rhonda were trying to get him help for what was then known as “shell shock.” Shawn describes his flashbacks as being “totally removed from everyone, anything, in an instant, completely immersed, with no ambiguity, fully within a particular combat situation.” Shawn’s invisible wounds continued to manifest, and in March 1973, while walking alone through the Arizona desert with his guns, he suddenly saw a figure rise up behind a tree and flashed back to Vietnam. Tragically, during this flashback he ended up killing a teenage couple who were out enjoying the Arizona desert. Just over a month prior to their deaths, Rhonda had taken Shawn to the local ER because of his mental health concerns. The ER discharged him describing “acute onset flashbacks to Vietnam, recommend psychiatric treatment at VA hospital …” He was awaiting this treatment when he killed the two people who were just a few years younger than he was.

Shawn was given two life sentences for killing the couple and has been locked up in Arizona’s prisons since 1973. In his first nine years of incarceration, he sought out cognitive behavioral therapy, and obtained two bachelors’ degrees, and Shawn and Rhonda celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary last year.

Image courtesy of Rhonda Jensen

The ACLU National Prison Project first met Shawn in 2011, when he and Rhonda were trying desperately to get him treatment for the prostate cancer that doctors think was most likely caused by his exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. Shawn became a lead named plaintiff in Jensen v. Shinn, our decade-long lawsuit to ensure that the nearly 30,000 adults and children in Arizona’s prisons receive the basic health care and conditions of confinement that they are entitled to under the Constitution and the law. Even after taking on this high-profile role, he struggled to receive care for a recurrence of prostate cancer.

Shawn’s experience after his military service is all too common. More than 180,000 veterans are incarcerated in the country’s jails and prison, according to the most recent available data, which is a decade old. (Only slightly more recent data from 2016 accounts for almost 110,000 veterans in federal and state prison custody.) The failure to keep up-to-date records on the number of incarcerated veterans is just another indication of how little care our government shows for people after their military service.

Image courtesy of Rhonda Jensen

For many incarcerated veterans, involvement in the criminal legal system is a direct result of psychological complications that arose from their service. It was not until 1980, years after Shawn experienced his first flashback, that the psychiatric community formally recognized PTSD. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that 15 percent of Vietnam War veterans experience PTSD, and 11 to 20 percent of veterans of the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan experience PTSD.

Over the years, research and science have allowed us to gain a better understanding of PTSD, its impact, and manifestations. We know now that PTSD can result from a traumatic event such as combat. PTSD can be triggered suddenly and can present in a variety of ways, and veterans with PTSD are about 60 percent more likely to be incarcerated than those without it. People with PTSD are also more likely have a substance use disorder, which can also lead to incarceration. In fact, almost one third of America’s war veterans have been arrested or booked into jail — nearly double the rate among civilians.

There is still a lot to learn about why veterans are overrepresented in prisons and jails. Unlike in 1969, we now know that trauma-informed care, cognitive behavioral therapy, and support systems make a difference. Shawn experienced firsthand the power of working with another Vietnam veteran as a therapist, which allowed for a deeper understanding of his experience. Better access to VA facilities and education about mental health resources are a way to overcome barriers to care. Recovery meetings designed for veterans and active duty service members are another option, now offered virtually. Community-based treatment works for veterans, as evidenced by a decline in arrests, and yields positive outcomes, including increased productivity, fewer suicides, and lower incarceration rates.

The damage to the bodies and minds of people like Shawn who fight our nation’s wars must be acknowledged and recognized by the same political leaders who send them abroad. If, as a nation, we want to honor their service, we should invest in providing community-based treatment to help them heal after their military service, instead of deepening their wounds by incarcerating them. This Veterans’ Day, we recognize the almost 10 percent of our nation’s incarcerated people who once wore our country’s uniform and fought in our wars, and continue to advocate for the care and support they need.

Voters across the political spectrum want their elected officials to support bold criminal justice reforms that reduce punishment and mass incarceration — according to polling conducted just before the midterms. Despite an aggressive, tough-on-crime campaign playbook from some candidates who attempted to manipulate crime as a wedge issue, voters largely chose justice anyway. Although not all reform initiatives on the ballot were successful, voters drove significant progress on several issues, including prison labor reform, drug policy, and prosecutorial reform.

Here are three major highlights from the midterm elections and what they mean for the future of criminal legal reform.

More than 150 years after slavery was abolished, four states — Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont — voted to eliminate language in their constitutions that allows slavery as punishment for a crime, an exception written into the 13th Amendment.

The success of these measures indicates growing support for prison reform in a country where roughly 800,000 incarcerated people work, and are often forced to do so for little to no pay. These amendments are needed to strip antiquated language from state constitutions and transform the criminal justice system by making all prison work voluntary. For far too long, incarcerated people have been exploited for their labor, making pennies on the dollar. These victories pave the way for ending modern-day forced labor in prisons and jails nationwide.

After this year’s midterms, 21 states have now legalized marijuana; the tide for legalization and decriminalization nationwide only continues to grow. Voters in Maryland legalized marijuana, including an automatic expungement provision for clearing past marijuana possession convictions, which will improve people’s lives so they aren’t saddled with a criminal record. And despite drug policy losses in Arkansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota, there were still many important victories in places where voters increasingly lean conservative. Missouri legalized marijuana, and five Texas cities plus five Ohio cities decriminalized marijuana possession locally. Wisconsin voters also approved marijuana ballot questions in three counties and five municipalities across the state, paving the way for future legalization.

These victories build upon promising results from past election cycles, where states that are more politically conservative — including Maine, Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska, Montana and Arizona — have passed marijuana legalization. This wave of wins not only highlights the increasingly bipartisan support for addressing significant racial bias in marijuana arrests, but also provides a stronger case for legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level. Marijuana legalization and expungement of past marijuana convictions are both necessary to remedy racial disparities and racial harms of the war on drugs.

In Colorado, voters approved a measure that decriminalizes the use of certain psychedelic drugs, which are becoming more commonly used to treat a host of health issues, including anxiety and mood disorders. This legalization measure will align the state with a growing national trend of treating drug use as a public health issue, not a criminal problem. There is still more work to be done, but the progress we’ve made in this election cycle points in the right direction.

Despite facing a barrage of tough-on-crime messaging and sustaining some losses, like in Maricopa County, Arizona, the reform prosecutor movement won several additional seats this cycle. From Polk County, Iowa, to Bexar County and Dallas County, Texas, to King County, Washington and beyond, voters made their voices clear: They want smart, evidence-based reforms to address public safety.

Perhaps most notably, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, career public defender Mary Moriarty’s smart justice approach easily prevailed over fear mongering from her law and order opponent, retired county judge and former prosecutor Martha Holton Dimick. Moriarty told reporters that her run was inspired by calls for racial justice reckoning and criminal justice reforms in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd uprisings: “I did see an opportunity for change slipping away. And I thought, people who really value public safety, and a fair and just system need to step up during this time of turmoil and really present options that aren’t the same old things we’ve had for decades, which haven’t kept us safer.”

Back in August, voters in Shelby County, Tennessee also ousted incumbent district attorney Amy Weirich, who developed a national reputation for being ineffective and overly-punitive, in favor of Steve Mulroy, who ran on platforms of reforming the office. Each of these progressive candidates won their races — several with wide margins — even despite growing threats against them in places like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

As history has shown time and time again, candidates who perpetuate harmful tough-on-crime rhetoric while ignoring the facts will not actually increase public safety. Although not all criminal justice reforms were successful this year, voters have proven that they want new solutions for addressing public safety, not divisive rhetoric that only stokes fear. Our newly-elected leaders on both sides of the aisle have an obligation to continue to push for bold legislation that transforms our approach to public safety, protects civil liberties, and strengthens our communities.