In 2006, Cyntoia Brown was sentenced to life in prison for shooting and killing a 43-year-old man who had picked her up for sex. At the time of the crime, she was 16 years old.
Cyntoia is now in her 20s, and her appeal is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Last week, after a local Fox 17 news report on her case, celebrities like Rihanna took to social media to condemn the sentence and call for her release. The attention to this case is understandable and justified. Cyntoia had run away from home and was living with a pimp who had raped and abused her. The legal team handling Cyntoia’s appeal says she suffers from an alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder, a type of fetal alcohol syndrome that impairs brain development and that more recent testing found her to have the functioning level of a 13 or 14-year-old.
On Aug. 6, 2004, Johnny Allen, aged 43, picked Cyntoia up in his truck for sex and drove her to his home. According to court documents, she thought he was reaching under his bed for a gun so she pulled out a handgun from her own purse and shot him. The jury rejected her claim of self-defense and found her guilty of first degree murder; the trial court sentenced her to life in prison. Under Tennessee law, she won’t be eligible for parole until she has served 51 years in prison.
Cyntoia’s case is appalling and heartbreaking but her experience with the criminal justice system isn’t unique. Thousands of people in the United States are serving life and other extreme sentences for offenses they committed as children.
The United States remains the only country in the world that allows children to be sentenced to life without parole, though recent Supreme Court cases have significantly restricted this practice, reasoning that children age out of criminal activity and have greater capacity for reform. However, the court’s decisions have not meant automatic release for juveniles serving life without parole for homicides nor have they prevented states from sending thousands of children to prison for life with the (increasingly slim) possibility of parole.
The United States remains the only country in the world that allows children to be sentenced to life without parole.
ACLU research has found that in 12 states alone, over 8,000 people are serving a sentence of life or 40 or more years for a crime committed under the age of 18. In Texas, Colorado, and Nebraska, many individuals previously sentenced to juvenile life without parole must serve at least 40 years in prison before they are eligible for parole. In Tennessee, where Cyntoia is incarcerated, people serving life sentences may wait up to 60 years for their first chance for release. Rates for granting parole for people convicted of serious crimes — even if they were juveniles at the time of the crime —are low across the country. In Florida in 2015, for example, only 0.5 percent of juvenile lifers were granted parole. If denied parole, depending on state law, lifers can wait 10 or 15 years — or indefinitely — for another opportunity to seek release on parole.
Some people in the ACLU investigation have served over 40 years in prison; one was only 12 years old at the time of his crime. Like Cyntoia Brown, they were growing up and growing old in prison, waiting for a chance at parole. Sentencing young people to excessively long sentences means that they never get a chance to rebuild their lives, even when they have demonstrated their capacity for reform and rehabilitation.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story