If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Admission of guilt when you are innocent: a Catch-22 situation
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
As I understand it the law states that one fundamental issue to look at when considering granting parole is the admission of guilt and the showing of remorse by the prisoner.
Although I can't remember of any specific cases I know there have been a few people who were wrongfully convicted of a crime and never considered for parole because they maintained their innocence throughout their stay in prison. Only when new evidence cleared their names they were allowed to leave the prison.
Isn't there a fundamental and serious problem with this rule? It's bad enough that innocent people get convicted of crimes they haven't committed. But are they supposed to lie as well and admit guilt and remorse for something they haven't actually done? What sense does this make?
However the judiciary/government seem a bit selective with this policy. This week alone has seen the early release on parole of two convicted criminals, Jeffrey Archer and Tony Martin, whom have shown absolutely no remorse for their crimes. It would seem that when you are powerful or have the backing of the right wing press some rules don't apply.
In any event this is a very flawed law and is in need of serious reform to accommodate cases when the prisoner might actually be innocent. How could that be done is another matter though.
Although I can't remember of any specific cases I know there have been a few people who were wrongfully convicted of a crime and never considered for parole because they maintained their innocence throughout their stay in prison. Only when new evidence cleared their names they were allowed to leave the prison.
Isn't there a fundamental and serious problem with this rule? It's bad enough that innocent people get convicted of crimes they haven't committed. But are they supposed to lie as well and admit guilt and remorse for something they haven't actually done? What sense does this make?
However the judiciary/government seem a bit selective with this policy. This week alone has seen the early release on parole of two convicted criminals, Jeffrey Archer and Tony Martin, whom have shown absolutely no remorse for their crimes. It would seem that when you are powerful or have the backing of the right wing press some rules don't apply.
In any event this is a very flawed law and is in need of serious reform to accommodate cases when the prisoner might actually be innocent. How could that be done is another matter though.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments