3 ms·

Do you consider it much different from the practice of denying parole when convicts continue to profess innocence instead of professing contriteness? If someon

Do you consider it much different from the practice of denying parole when convicts continue to profess innocence instead of professing contriteness? If someone is really innocent, they are in the catch 22 of staying in prison for life because parole boards deny release but if they just lie and pretend to feel contrite they get out on parole right away after serving time. There was a case on NPR recently but there's a name for the phenomena - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner%27s_dilemma plus documentaries about similar cases - West Memphis Three, etc.

dmix 9y ago
While I see that as a valid issue in it's own right... I don't see the connection here, sorry. Cruel and unusual punishment applies regardless of actual or claimed innocence, they could have totally done the crime and the punishment could still be unconstitutional. This is not a catch-22 side effect of inflexible poorly written law, but an intentional side-stepping of built-in protections against abuse of power.
kelnos 9y ago
The thing about that is, in practical terms, the prisoners are making a terrible choice by sticking to their guns. They options are: 1) Keep professing innocence and stay in prison. 2) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out. 3) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out... and then work to retroactively exonerate yourself, when you're on the outside and actually have some chance of doing so without a lucky guardian angel taking interest in your case while you're in prison. There are no legal ramifications to "admitting" guilt and expressing remorse. You already have the conviction on your record, so in the eyes of the law, you committed the crime, end of story. I'm sympathetic to the parole board here, to be honest (which feels really weird to say). While they of course know abstractly that some innocent people are in jail and shouldn't be, they don't have much to go on when it comes to the prisoner in front of them. They have the prisoner's conviction record, without enough context to make a guilty/not-guilty call of their own (and do we even want them making a call along those lines?), and their purpose is to determine if the potential parolee is likely to re-offend. They have to assume the conviction record is correct, or it's basically impossible for them to do their job. And if it is correct, and the prisoner professes innocence, they can't responsibly say that releasing them is a good idea. Beyond that, if the prisoner is indeed innocent, there is a process for dealing with that outside the parole process. It's not perfect, and it's difficult for a prisoner to gain access, and I'm sure could stand to see some large improvements, but the parole process just isn't the place to get your sentence reduced because you actually are innocent.
- dmix 9y ago
  > the prisoners are making a terrible choice by sticking to their guns. Being a convicted felon has long repercussions outside of your original jail time where this calculated - seemingly rational - strategy you discuss is only a short term one... There is an important point brought up in the OP's linked wikipedia page: >> Medwed's Second Look clinic, a group dedicated to the release of innocent prisoners, assisted lawyers in his eighth parole board hearing which was successful, releasing him onto indefinite parole. Overturning the original conviction would be hampered by his admissions of guilt at his parole hearings. The admission of guilt extends well beyond the release from prison. Including jobs, reputation, future convictions... not to mention the possible compensation he could receive for if the original wrongful conviction is overturned.

dmix 9y ago

While I see that as a valid issue in it's own right... I don't see the connection here, sorry. Cruel and unusual punishment applies regardless of actual or claimed innocence, they could have totally done the crime and the punishment could still be unconstitutional. This is not a catch-22 side effect of inflexible poorly written law, but an intentional side-stepping of built-in protections against abuse of power.

kelnos 9y ago

The thing about that is, in practical terms, the prisoners are making a terrible choice by sticking to their guns. They options are: 1) Keep professing innocence and stay in prison. 2) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out. 3) Lie and express remorse, and maybe get out... and then work to retroactively exonerate yourself, when you're on the outside and actually have some chance of doing so without a lucky guardian angel taking interest in your case while you're in prison. There are no legal ramifications to "admitting" guilt and expressing remorse. You already have the conviction on your record, so in the eyes of the law, you committed the crime, end of story. I'm sympathetic to the parole board here, to be honest (which feels really weird to say). While they of course know abstractly that some innocent people are in jail and shouldn't be, they don't have much to go on when it comes to the prisoner in front of them. They have the prisoner's conviction record, without enough context to make a guilty/not-guilty call of their own (and do we even want them making a call along those lines?), and their purpose is to determine if the potential parolee is likely to re-offend. They have to assume the conviction record is correct, or it's basically impossible for them to do their job. And if it is correct, and the prisoner professes innocence, they can't responsibly say that releasing them is a good idea. Beyond that, if the prisoner is indeed innocent, there is a process for dealing with that outside the parole process. It's not perfect, and it's difficult for a prisoner to gain access, and I'm sure could stand to see some large improvements, but the parole process just isn't the place to get your sentence reduced because you actually are innocent.

dmix 9y ago
> the prisoners are making a terrible choice by sticking to their guns. Being a convicted felon has long repercussions outside of your original jail time where this calculated - seemingly rational - strategy you discuss is only a short term one... There is an important point brought up in the OP's linked wikipedia page: >> Medwed's Second Look clinic, a group dedicated to the release of innocent prisoners, assisted lawyers in his eighth parole board hearing which was successful, releasing him onto indefinite parole. Overturning the original conviction would be hampered by his admissions of guilt at his parole hearings. The admission of guilt extends well beyond the release from prison. Including jobs, reputation, future convictions... not to mention the possible compensation he could receive for if the original wrongful conviction is overturned.