Moreover, although the Board noted, as mitigating factors, Thomas’s participation in programs and counseling, his vocational certifications, and his infraction-free status maintained throughout Thomas’s entire prison stay, it failed to address the ten positive psychological evaluations performed on Thomas between 1991 and 2003, all of which consistently reported that Thomas had “good insight” and maintained good impulse control and judgment. We conclude that the record here does not support the conclusion that recidivism is likely.
Our criticisms of the parole process are confined to the distinctive setting of this case involving “heightened review” of the constitutionality of an extremely lengthy incarceration of a juvenile offender who has been a model prisoner. Our holding should not be construed as a generalized finding that the parole process is procedurally deficient or unfair.
The last paragraph was likely included to avoid encouraging litigation that challenges the overall parole process. Inmates denied parole are highly motivated to pursue any avenue that might shorten their prison stay. Our appellate courts are already back-logged to unprecedented levels.