8 ms·

Life After 'Life': Aging Inmates Struggle For Redemption

37 points by kevinwang 12y ago

WalterBright 12y ago
I just don't see much point in sentences beyond 30-40 years.
- narsil 12y ago
  That might be explained by the US prison system being one of punishment, not rehabilitation. [0] [0] http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx
  - lazyjones 12y ago
    It's both punishment and big business. http://www.thenation.com/prison-profiteers http://www.thenation.com/prison-profiteers
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Only about 8% of prisoners are held in for-profit prisons: http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-g.... Moreover, the prison population started exploding long before for-profit prisons arose. The U.S. prison population started exploding in the mid-1970's, as states passed tough-on-crime measures like three strikes' laws in response to dramatic increases in crime rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Incarcerated_Americans_as_a_Percent_of_Population.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta.... But even by 1990, only a negligible percentage of U.S. prisoners were in for-profit prisons: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102..... I strongly oppose for-profit prisons, but the whole "prisons are big business!" trope the NYT likes to trot out is bullshit. For-profit prison companies are opportunists, taking advantage of the trend of growing prison populations combined with the heavy emphasis in the 1990's on trimming the number of public employees. But CCA didn't create the massive U.S. prison population. Voters did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Enactment_by_states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Enactment_by_.... Frightened suburbanite baby boomers watching the news, shrieking "Just Say No!" at school events, voting for Three Strikes' laws and aggressive drug enforcement. I.e. NYT's core readership.
      - danielweber 12y ago
        While I agree in general, there was serious lobbying for the Three Strikes Law by people who stood to gain financially. It may have happened even without their support, but they thought it was worth the payoff to put in millions of dollars. http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843426/folsom-embodies-californias-prison-blues http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843426/folsom-embodies-cali...
        rayiner 12y ago
        California's Prop. 184, which is probably the harshest three-strikes law in the country because it doesn't require the third felony to be serious or violent, was a ballot initiative that passed 72-28 in 1994: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_184,_the_Three_Strikes_Initiative_%281994%29 http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_184,_the_Three.... Washington's Initiative 593 passed 75-25 the year before: http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_%22Three_Strikes%22,_Initiative_593_%281993%29 http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_%22Three_Strikes%22,_Initi.... You can't get American voters to agree on anything by that kind of margin, other than apparently the idea that you should get life in prison for stealing a few hundred dollars each on three separate occasions. Honestly, what really irks me about the "prison lobbying" angle is that it's just a way to shirk responsibility. "Oh, it's those lobbyists that are to blame, not my parents, friends, or me."
        danielweber 12y ago
        That's the one the NPR article talks about (unless there was another in 1994). Then came the "Three Strikes You're Out" law in 1994. Offenders who had committed even a minor third felony — like shoplifting — got life sentences. Voters at the time were inundated with television ads, pamphlets and press conferences from Gov. Pete Wilson. "Three strikes is the most important victory yet in the fight to take back our streets," Wilson told crowds. But behind these efforts to get voters to approve these laws was one major player: the correctional officers union. In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to Wilson after he backed the three strikes law. And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year. Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the union, says it does what is best for its members. "We have advocated successfully for our members," he said. ... EDIT You also show how it worked in Washington, which is a good comparison. Was there similar lobbying there? (This is an earnest question, I do not know the answer.)
  - gadders 12y ago
    It should be for punishment and rehabilitation. If there is no punishment, there is no deterrence.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
      Rehabilitation is science fiction. Just because we want it to be possible does not make it possible. Some convicts do spontaneously change and become rehabilitated, but no one has offered much evidence that they can engineer this change and induce it reliably. And yet the myth persists. Medical science and psychology have failed to reliably treat much simpler mental illnesses (let alone cure), but somehow they can dig around inside someone's skull and cure something that isn't a mental illness at all, rather the predisposition to make bad, destructive, and illegal choices?
      - pointing 12y ago
        Lots of things were science fiction before they were science. Our ability to treat mental illness today is better than it was 75 years ago. Why not try to find ways that we can stop paying for people to be in prisons, and instead put them back in society and growing the economy. There is a ton of money put into locking people up. It would pay for itself to figure out how to rehabilitated a small percentage of them. There are already "twelve step" programs which are mandated by courts. Something that was evidence based would surely work better. But instead the focus in the US is on punishment, victims rights, three strikes laws and being tough on crime.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
        > Lots of things were science fiction before they were science. Our ability to treat mental illness today is better than it was 75 years ago. This isn't a counter-argument. Lots of things that were science fiction 50 years ago are still science fiction today. However, I will keep an open mind. If in the future someone claims to understand rehabilitation and can prove this, I will consider their work/theory. I will not "just try it anyway" today because of wishful thinking. > Why not try to find ways that we can stop paying for people to be in prisons Fine by me, as long as it doesn't involve science fiction. I even have some suggestions: Legalize drugs. Don't decriminalize them. Don't just legalize marijuana either... legalize cocaine, heroin, meth. Pardon everyone for their drug crimes (but not violent crimes associated with drug dealing). Do this, and you can substantially reduce both the number of people in prison, and the average time spent there. Low level drug dealers won't spend time in prison learning to be psychopaths. Drug users won't commit burglaries and theft trying to pay for their drug habit (if they'll do anything for a fix, anything includes scrubbing toilets). Of course, this won't happen. People believe the television shows they watch where someone who uses meth once turns into a demon. > Something that was evidence based would surely work better. I agree. But this is a problem I think requires a working theory of mind/intelligence. (Funny how it's either another variation of the AI problem, or related to it, eh?) We don't have that. > But instead the focus in the US is on punishment This is because we are monkeys. I don't mean metaphorically, but literally. Monkeys have instinctual senses of justice that demand punishment and vengeance and so forth. If you remove punishment from the equation, this would be bad. The state punishes so that the monkeys will feel as if justice has occurred, and will refrain from performing their own justice. Do you want revenge killings and vigilanteeism to rise?
- personlurking 12y ago
  A lot of countries have max sentences which are around '30-40 years'. One also has to consider the fact that a 25-year old, for example, who gets 40 years is basically spending life in prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Reform_or_abolition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Reform_or_abo...
- trhway 12y ago
  in case of such sentences - where person is de-facto removed from the society forever, as even the 30-40 years means that the person will be different and the society will change unrecognizable - i see how it would make sense just to send the person to live on some other territory, continent, planet, asteroid, etc... Long prison terms have 2 functions - deterrent and removing dangerous people from society. Both of this can be accomplished if the place where convicts are to be send is remote and harsh. Such approach would also allow to avoid feeding such a beast as the prison guards union.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > i see how it would make sense just to send the person to live on some other territory, continent, planet, asteroid, etc... And then even your prisons declare independence sooner or later. Look at Australia.
    - jafaku 12y ago
      What happened there?
      - gambiting 12y ago
        I can't tell if you are being serious,but in case you really don't know, the British Empire used to send its convicts to Australia, as it was a new colony and was in need of as many people as possible. So instead of putting those people in prison, they sent them off to Australia, without the ability to ever come back.
        jafaku 12y ago
        I was being serious, I don't know the entire history of every country. Thanks.
      - throwaway_xl5 12y ago
        Starting in 1788, Britain used a policy of 'Transportation' to colonies in Australia to relieve overcrowding in its prisons at home. Of course, Australia is now an independent country. The book 'A Commonwealth of Thieves' by Thomas Keneally provides a very readable narrative of the first British people to settle there.
- spingsprong 12y ago
  How about a murderer who says they'll kill again if they get out?
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Just do what Norway does - maximum sentence is 21 years, and then it's re-reviewed. If the prisoner has rehabilitated, release them - if not,they can extend the sentence by another few years. And then again,and again,and again - as many times as needed, effectively turning it into a life sentence in the case of hardened criminals, but eventually releasing people like the ones mentioned in the article,who have genuinely changed.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      Actually, if you are given 21 years in prison, you are given 21 years. Normally you would then get out on parole after 14, but the maximum you will receive unless you carry out other criminal acts while in prison that warrants a new trial and sentence, is 21 years. In order for it to be possible to keep the person locked up further, it requires a special sentence - "forvaring" - that is separate from the longest ordinary prison sentence and is intended for use only with prisoners that are deemed to be at particular high risk of reoffending. The court will set a minimum period that the convicted needs to stay in prison, which should normally not exceed 10 years, and a term after which the prisoner will be regularly reviewed for release, which should normally not exceed 15 years but that can be as long as 21 (at least every 5 years). The prosecution will then go to the courts and request an extension if they believe there's still cause to believe that the person is at great risk of reoffending at the end of the initial term and in advance of the expiry of any extensions. It was specifically made clear when the changes to the law was made, that it was not generally intended as a life sentence, but in fact that it was expected that at lot of the sentences would have much shorter terms than the maximum. As of 2005 (3 years after introduction of "forvaring") 2/3's of the sentences where it had been given where given with terms less than 10 years. I don't know, and don't have time to check, how many of these have actually been released, but I know some have been released without extensions to their initial term, even in cases where the court found that there was risk of reoffending, but where the risk was not found to be sufficient to meet the criteria for extending the term.
- gadders 12y ago
  I think there is a case for "whole of life" terms - i.e. never released until they die.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Surio 12y ago
Reading this article reminded me of the scenes from the film, Shawshank redemption. You know, where Brooks got released, but was institutionalised for so long that he couldn't cope with the outside world and commits suicide? And which was then used as a suspense moment when Red also reaches for the chair and goes to the same beam? EDIT: Not to mention, how Red narrates how hard it was for him to go on loo breaks without asking for permission :(
- _delirium 12y ago
  This is one reason the Scandinavian prison systems try to gradually move people out into society prior to full release, as kind of a phased-in release. It's common to move people who are considered less of a security risk to minimum-security prisons that are less prison-like and more like boarding schools, and then allow weekend releases towards the end of sentences, where prisoners can leave for the weekend to spend time with family, but have to report back on Monday. Sometimes this leads to bad headlines (prisoners can "escape" by just hopping a short fence at a minimum-security facility, or deciding not to come back from weekend release), but overall I think it has positive effects.
  - Ntrails 12y ago
    Simply write the timings in such a way as where before they would have been paroled at time t, their move to low security and reintroduction occurs at t. Therefore they don't get to escape "easily" any sooner than they would have under a previous systm?
ern 12y ago
A condition for parole seems to be that the prisoner accept that they did the crime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner's_dilemma). I don't know the circumstances of the case, but assuming that the prisoner who drove over his wife during an argument maintained that he intended to reverse, would he have been paroled?
- techsupporter 12y ago
  No. It is galling to me that, as your linked article states and has been demonstrated in several court cases, factual innocence is not an immediate overturning of the conviction, an expungment, and a written apology from the governing body that erred.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > factual innocence is not an immediate overturning of the conviction Someone who can show that they are actually innocent can file a federal habeas petition, and their proof of actual innocence will get past any procedural hurdle that stands in their way: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/opinion-analysis-innocence-exception-survives-innocence-claim-does-not http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/opinion-analysis-innocence.... The problem is that most prisoners cannot show actual innocence. It's usually a matter of showing some new evidence or some flaw in the original evidence that doesn't rise to the level of convincingly proving that the original verdict was incorrect. That's why DNA evidence is so often the basis for releasing the innocently convicted: they rise to the level of convincingly showing that the original verdict was in error.

37 points by kevinwang 12y ago

WalterBright 12y ago

I just don't see much point in sentences beyond 30-40 years.

narsil 12y ago
That might be explained by the US prison system being one of punishment, not rehabilitation. [0] [0] http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx
- lazyjones 12y ago
  It's both punishment and big business. http://www.thenation.com/prison-profiteers http://www.thenation.com/prison-profiteers
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Only about 8% of prisoners are held in for-profit prisons: http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-g.... Moreover, the prison population started exploding long before for-profit prisons arose. The U.S. prison population started exploding in the mid-1970's, as states passed tough-on-crime measures like three strikes' laws in response to dramatic increases in crime rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Incarcerated_Americans_as_a_Percent_of_Population.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta.... But even by 1990, only a negligible percentage of U.S. prisoners were in for-profit prisons: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102..... I strongly oppose for-profit prisons, but the whole "prisons are big business!" trope the NYT likes to trot out is bullshit. For-profit prison companies are opportunists, taking advantage of the trend of growing prison populations combined with the heavy emphasis in the 1990's on trimming the number of public employees. But CCA didn't create the massive U.S. prison population. Voters did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Enactment_by_states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Enactment_by_.... Frightened suburbanite baby boomers watching the news, shrieking "Just Say No!" at school events, voting for Three Strikes' laws and aggressive drug enforcement. I.e. NYT's core readership.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      While I agree in general, there was serious lobbying for the Three Strikes Law by people who stood to gain financially. It may have happened even without their support, but they thought it was worth the payoff to put in millions of dollars. http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843426/folsom-embodies-californias-prison-blues http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843426/folsom-embodies-cali...
      - rayiner 12y ago
        California's Prop. 184, which is probably the harshest three-strikes law in the country because it doesn't require the third felony to be serious or violent, was a ballot initiative that passed 72-28 in 1994: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_184,_the_Three_Strikes_Initiative_%281994%29 http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_184,_the_Three.... Washington's Initiative 593 passed 75-25 the year before: http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_%22Three_Strikes%22,_Initiative_593_%281993%29 http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_%22Three_Strikes%22,_Initi.... You can't get American voters to agree on anything by that kind of margin, other than apparently the idea that you should get life in prison for stealing a few hundred dollars each on three separate occasions. Honestly, what really irks me about the "prison lobbying" angle is that it's just a way to shirk responsibility. "Oh, it's those lobbyists that are to blame, not my parents, friends, or me."
        danielweber 12y ago
        That's the one the NPR article talks about (unless there was another in 1994). Then came the "Three Strikes You're Out" law in 1994. Offenders who had committed even a minor third felony — like shoplifting — got life sentences. Voters at the time were inundated with television ads, pamphlets and press conferences from Gov. Pete Wilson. "Three strikes is the most important victory yet in the fight to take back our streets," Wilson told crowds. But behind these efforts to get voters to approve these laws was one major player: the correctional officers union. In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to Wilson after he backed the three strikes law. And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year. Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the union, says it does what is best for its members. "We have advocated successfully for our members," he said. ... EDIT You also show how it worked in Washington, which is a good comparison. Was there similar lobbying there? (This is an earnest question, I do not know the answer.)
- gadders 12y ago
  It should be for punishment and rehabilitation. If there is no punishment, there is no deterrence.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    Rehabilitation is science fiction. Just because we want it to be possible does not make it possible. Some convicts do spontaneously change and become rehabilitated, but no one has offered much evidence that they can engineer this change and induce it reliably. And yet the myth persists. Medical science and psychology have failed to reliably treat much simpler mental illnesses (let alone cure), but somehow they can dig around inside someone's skull and cure something that isn't a mental illness at all, rather the predisposition to make bad, destructive, and illegal choices?
    - pointing 12y ago
      Lots of things were science fiction before they were science. Our ability to treat mental illness today is better than it was 75 years ago. Why not try to find ways that we can stop paying for people to be in prisons, and instead put them back in society and growing the economy. There is a ton of money put into locking people up. It would pay for itself to figure out how to rehabilitated a small percentage of them. There are already "twelve step" programs which are mandated by courts. Something that was evidence based would surely work better. But instead the focus in the US is on punishment, victims rights, three strikes laws and being tough on crime.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
        > Lots of things were science fiction before they were science. Our ability to treat mental illness today is better than it was 75 years ago. This isn't a counter-argument. Lots of things that were science fiction 50 years ago are still science fiction today. However, I will keep an open mind. If in the future someone claims to understand rehabilitation and can prove this, I will consider their work/theory. I will not "just try it anyway" today because of wishful thinking. > Why not try to find ways that we can stop paying for people to be in prisons Fine by me, as long as it doesn't involve science fiction. I even have some suggestions: Legalize drugs. Don't decriminalize them. Don't just legalize marijuana either... legalize cocaine, heroin, meth. Pardon everyone for their drug crimes (but not violent crimes associated with drug dealing). Do this, and you can substantially reduce both the number of people in prison, and the average time spent there. Low level drug dealers won't spend time in prison learning to be psychopaths. Drug users won't commit burglaries and theft trying to pay for their drug habit (if they'll do anything for a fix, anything includes scrubbing toilets). Of course, this won't happen. People believe the television shows they watch where someone who uses meth once turns into a demon. > Something that was evidence based would surely work better. I agree. But this is a problem I think requires a working theory of mind/intelligence. (Funny how it's either another variation of the AI problem, or related to it, eh?) We don't have that. > But instead the focus in the US is on punishment This is because we are monkeys. I don't mean metaphorically, but literally. Monkeys have instinctual senses of justice that demand punishment and vengeance and so forth. If you remove punishment from the equation, this would be bad. The state punishes so that the monkeys will feel as if justice has occurred, and will refrain from performing their own justice. Do you want revenge killings and vigilanteeism to rise?
personlurking 12y ago
A lot of countries have max sentences which are around '30-40 years'. One also has to consider the fact that a 25-year old, for example, who gets 40 years is basically spending life in prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Reform_or_abolition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Reform_or_abo...
trhway 12y ago
in case of such sentences - where person is de-facto removed from the society forever, as even the 30-40 years means that the person will be different and the society will change unrecognizable - i see how it would make sense just to send the person to live on some other territory, continent, planet, asteroid, etc... Long prison terms have 2 functions - deterrent and removing dangerous people from society. Both of this can be accomplished if the place where convicts are to be send is remote and harsh. Such approach would also allow to avoid feeding such a beast as the prison guards union.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > i see how it would make sense just to send the person to live on some other territory, continent, planet, asteroid, etc... And then even your prisons declare independence sooner or later. Look at Australia.
  - jafaku 12y ago
    What happened there?
    - gambiting 12y ago
      I can't tell if you are being serious,but in case you really don't know, the British Empire used to send its convicts to Australia, as it was a new colony and was in need of as many people as possible. So instead of putting those people in prison, they sent them off to Australia, without the ability to ever come back.
      - jafaku 12y ago
        I was being serious, I don't know the entire history of every country. Thanks.
    - throwaway_xl5 12y ago
      Starting in 1788, Britain used a policy of 'Transportation' to colonies in Australia to relieve overcrowding in its prisons at home. Of course, Australia is now an independent country. The book 'A Commonwealth of Thieves' by Thomas Keneally provides a very readable narrative of the first British people to settle there.
spingsprong 12y ago
How about a murderer who says they'll kill again if they get out?
- gambiting 12y ago
  Just do what Norway does - maximum sentence is 21 years, and then it's re-reviewed. If the prisoner has rehabilitated, release them - if not,they can extend the sentence by another few years. And then again,and again,and again - as many times as needed, effectively turning it into a life sentence in the case of hardened criminals, but eventually releasing people like the ones mentioned in the article,who have genuinely changed.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    Actually, if you are given 21 years in prison, you are given 21 years. Normally you would then get out on parole after 14, but the maximum you will receive unless you carry out other criminal acts while in prison that warrants a new trial and sentence, is 21 years. In order for it to be possible to keep the person locked up further, it requires a special sentence - "forvaring" - that is separate from the longest ordinary prison sentence and is intended for use only with prisoners that are deemed to be at particular high risk of reoffending. The court will set a minimum period that the convicted needs to stay in prison, which should normally not exceed 10 years, and a term after which the prisoner will be regularly reviewed for release, which should normally not exceed 15 years but that can be as long as 21 (at least every 5 years). The prosecution will then go to the courts and request an extension if they believe there's still cause to believe that the person is at great risk of reoffending at the end of the initial term and in advance of the expiry of any extensions. It was specifically made clear when the changes to the law was made, that it was not generally intended as a life sentence, but in fact that it was expected that at lot of the sentences would have much shorter terms than the maximum. As of 2005 (3 years after introduction of "forvaring") 2/3's of the sentences where it had been given where given with terms less than 10 years. I don't know, and don't have time to check, how many of these have actually been released, but I know some have been released without extensions to their initial term, even in cases where the court found that there was risk of reoffending, but where the risk was not found to be sufficient to meet the criteria for extending the term.
gadders 12y ago
I think there is a case for "whole of life" terms - i.e. never released until they die.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Surio 12y ago

Reading this article reminded me of the scenes from the film, Shawshank redemption. You know, where Brooks got released, but was institutionalised for so long that he couldn't cope with the outside world and commits suicide? And which was then used as a suspense moment when Red also reaches for the chair and goes to the same beam? EDIT: Not to mention, how Red narrates how hard it was for him to go on loo breaks without asking for permission :(

_delirium 12y ago
This is one reason the Scandinavian prison systems try to gradually move people out into society prior to full release, as kind of a phased-in release. It's common to move people who are considered less of a security risk to minimum-security prisons that are less prison-like and more like boarding schools, and then allow weekend releases towards the end of sentences, where prisoners can leave for the weekend to spend time with family, but have to report back on Monday. Sometimes this leads to bad headlines (prisoners can "escape" by just hopping a short fence at a minimum-security facility, or deciding not to come back from weekend release), but overall I think it has positive effects.
- Ntrails 12y ago
  Simply write the timings in such a way as where before they would have been paroled at time t, their move to low security and reintroduction occurs at t. Therefore they don't get to escape "easily" any sooner than they would have under a previous systm?

ern 12y ago

A condition for parole seems to be that the prisoner accept that they did the crime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner's_dilemma). I don't know the circumstances of the case, but assuming that the prisoner who drove over his wife during an argument maintained that he intended to reverse, would he have been paroled?

techsupporter 12y ago
No. It is galling to me that, as your linked article states and has been demonstrated in several court cases, factual innocence is not an immediate overturning of the conviction, an expungment, and a written apology from the governing body that erred.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > factual innocence is not an immediate overturning of the conviction Someone who can show that they are actually innocent can file a federal habeas petition, and their proof of actual innocence will get past any procedural hurdle that stands in their way: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/opinion-analysis-innocence-exception-survives-innocence-claim-does-not http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/opinion-analysis-innocence.... The problem is that most prisoners cannot show actual innocence. It's usually a matter of showing some new evidence or some flaw in the original evidence that doesn't rise to the level of convincingly proving that the original verdict was incorrect. That's why DNA evidence is so often the basis for releasing the innocently convicted: they rise to the level of convincingly showing that the original verdict was in error.