Tennessee Board of Parole Uses ‘Unreliable’ Computer Program to Deny Inmates Parole, Class Action Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action claims the Tennessee Board of Parole uses an “unreliable, unauthenticated” computer program to decide if inmates are eligible for parole and then prohibits them from effectively challenging these rulings.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 21-page lawsuit was filed by two inmates serving prison sentences in Tennessee who claim they were denied parole based on the “flawed” results of their “Strong-R” assessment, a computerized test that assesses offenders’ needs and scores the overall risk they will reoffend. 

Although the plaintiffs allege that their Strong-R results—which placed them in the “high” and “moderate” risk categories—were “simply random” or based on false allegations, the Parole Board has barred all of their attempts to dispute these results, the filing contends.

One plaintiff, an inmate serving a 48-year sentence for several crimes, says that until he was transferred to a different prison in 2022, his annual Strong-R risk results would come back as either “low” or, in some cases, “moderate.” However, after taking the assessment post-transfer, the plaintiff's results inexplicably showed that he was “high” risk and likely to become violent, the suit contends.

Per the complaint, the detailed results of the man’s Strong-R assessment falsely reported that he showed signs of mental illness, had been confined to a mental asylum and had committed crimes due to non-compliance with mental health medications.

“In reality, [the plaintiff] has never been prescribed any psychological medications, diagnosed with any mental illness, or confined to any institution,” the case relays.

The results also falsely suggested that the man was a psychopath who committed his crimes “simply for thrill or pleasure,” the lawsuit says. And, despite having been sober for many years, the assessment reported that the man was abusing alcohol and drugs, the filing shares.

The suit points out that Tennessee courts have repeatedly found the Strong-R assessment to be “unreliable” and that many correctional employees are not properly trained to administer the test.

“For example, the assessment asks numerous questions about an inmate’s life and history, and then correctional employees are supposed to answer those questions on behalf of the inmates, correctly inputting the information into the computer,” the filing reads. “Ideally, the employee will do so, accurately relaying the questions to the inmate and then accurately inputting the inmate’s answers into the computer.”

However, in some instances, employees fail to adequately perform these duties or simply answer the questions for the inmate all on their own, the filing alleges.

“Further, some of the questions are also simply asked in a specific way, to be interpreted idiosyncratically by the computer,” the case shares. “And if the employee does not understand how to interpret them, a false result may occur.”

The complaint explains that after the plaintiff and his lawyer requested that the man be re-tested due to his clearly erroneous Strong-R results, prison counselors eventually agreed to an “audit.” Then, at the plaintiff’s May 2023 parole hearing, it was announced that the employees “had done everything right” and the plaintiff truly was “high” risk, the filing relays.

However, according to the suit, there were no witnesses at the hearing to testify that the Strong-R result was accurate, and the Parole Board ultimately denied the plaintiff’s attempt to subpoena the officer who entered the allegedly false data. In fact, the board received and ignored the testimony of a letter writer who listed “about a dozen concrete ways” that the man’s Strong-R result was factually wrong, the complaint says.

“Despite no showing of authenticity for the STRONG-R, and despite the clear evidence of falsity, the hearing officer announced a denial of parole based mainly on the STRONG-R,” the filing says. “Days later, the Parole Board held the same way.”

The case names as defendants Chairman of the Tennessee Board of Parole Richard Montgomery and board members Zane Duncan, Gary Faulcon, Tim Gobble, Mae Beavers, Roberta Kustoff and Barrett Rich.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who is, or will be, eligible for parole and given a parole grant hearing in Tennessee.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.