As I understand it, in order for a convict to be eligible for parole they generally have to admit that they were guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. (Please correct me if I’m wrong about this.)
This requirement only makes sense if we assume everyone who is convicted actually did commit the crime for which they were convicted, and while this is probably true in the vast majority of cases, there are numerous counter-examples proving that this is not always the case.
Given that there are innocent people in prison, requiring convicts to admit guilt for what they’ve done in order to secure parole amounts to a system that selectively denies parole to people who are both innocent and too honest to lie about it in order to secure their release. In other words, it makes sure the people we should most want out of prison are unable to recieve parole.
I think the logic is that the system works well enough that the odds lean heavily toward people in prison actually being guilty of having done something wrong. With that in mind, you don’t want unrepentant criminals getting parole, especially if you’re on the parole board–relapses on the part of paroled criminasl are never good for the paroler’s career.
I think you can broaden the OP to encompass the entire concept of the Plea Bargaining system.
I too am distinctly uncomfortable with it. Imagine you are innocent but the evidence against you is suggestive enough that you might get convicted. The prosecutor gives you an option, go to court and risk life in prison or plea and get 15 years (as an example). That is a rather lousy decision to face for an innocent person and if the person is really guilty you are rewarding them with a shorter sentence when maybe they should be locked up for life.
My understanding of it has been that the criminal judicial system would simply grind to a halt without the plea system. They simply do not have the capacity to bring every case to trial. Heck…95% of all felony cases never see the inside of a courtroom (cite).
I agree that most convicted criminals are probably guilty, but the question remains whether the benefit of having those guilty people admit guilt before release outweighs the harm done in the minority of cases where the convict in question is innocent.
You mention not wanting paroled criminals to reoffend. That’s a good point, but is there actually good evidence that people who claim innocence are more likely to reoffend? I honestly don’t know the answer. If there is a proven benefit, I’d also wonder whether the same benefit could be achieved merely by requiring people to give a statement to the effect of “While I maintain my innocence, were I guilty I would deeply regret my actions,” or to elaborate on why the actions they were convicted of would be morally wrong (whether they admit to doing it or not).
There’re also benefits for prosecutors, who I imagine would prefer a guaranteed 15-year sentence (to use your example) to the potential of a “not guilty” verdict.
I share your discomfort with the plea bargaining system for this reason, but as you say it may be necessary to spare the burden on the criminal justice system. (It’s also worth noting that getting cases wrapped up that much quicker probably benefits the public defenders just as much as prosecutors. I know that public defenders often have extremely heavy case loads.)
In the case of parole, though, I don’t think forcing the convict to admit guilt relieves any great burden on the system.
You make good points. I’m not sure what my position actually is–I just thought I’d give what I always saw as the (ahem) party line on the topic. From a cold, utilitarian perspective, I think the answer to your first indirect question is “yes, the benefits do outweigh the suffering of the few.” However, compassion has to come in somewhere, which is where I think you’re really feeling uncomfortable about the whole issue.
Regarding your alternatives, I think the “I’m innocent but I’d feel bad if guilty” line would be seen as too easy on potential parolees. It’d be easy to argue that a prisoner could just lie–after all, how would he know if he’d feel bad or not? The latter option would face some of the same problem, but it’s also a bit more defensible. I haven’t done enough thinking about this to make a coherent case about much, as might be obvious.
Blackstone’s Ratio: “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
I kinda thought the US system was built with this sort of in mind (presumption of innocence after all).
And remember for every person who pleas but did not do it you are leaving the actual guilty person out there totally unpunished and now no one is looking for them (because they think they already have their guy).
I guess you have to decide how many innocent people are worth sacrificing in order to ensure more guilty people get caught. Not sure how you make this determination. Certainly no practical system could be 100% effective in protecting the innocent but I still find it difficult to suggest what percentage is ok to get it wrong with.
Consider two guys, both charged with a minor felony. Bail is set at $10,000, which means it’s $1,000 to the bondsman to get out. Prosecution offers a straight probation deal for a guilty plea right now. The Commonwealth’s case is weak, and more likely than not wouldn’t survive at trial.
Huge difference now is how they can respond. If you can afford to pay the bondsman, you can fight the charge and win, or even get it reduced to a misdemeanor.
But if can’t pay the bond, you stay locked up until trial… and lose your job, because you’re not showing up, and get evicted, because you’re not paying rent.
So you take the deal, not because the charge has teeth, but because you need to be back at work Monday.
Certainly a person could just say “Oh, I feel bad about it” when really he doesn’t. But even if you require that same person to admit guilt, they’d still only be telling you what you want to hear in order to secure their release. In which case, I doubt if having confessed their guilt would make them any more likely not to reoffend.
Like I said, I’m not sure whether admitting guilt does make one any less likely to reoffend. But if it works that way for anyone, it would probably only be the people who are taking the whole process to heart, not the ones who are just jumping through the necessary hoops to get out of prison.
Personally, I’m cynical enough to think most people would just be jumping through the necessary hoops to get out of prison, but I don’t have any hard evidence to back me up.
It isn’t? Am I mistaken in that people of more wealth generally are released on their own recognizance or under a heavy enough bail that they will be compelled to return? (Which isn’t to say there isn’t a minimum bail for some alleged crimes that moneyless people could not afford.)
On TV, which may have nothing to do with reality, they show the defendant being required to admit that he committed the crime. What if the defendant, who happens to be innocent, wants to accept the plea bargain but refuses to lie under oath?
I’m pretty sure if the defendant must admit to the crime under oath in open court and then refuses to do so the plea bargain goes out the window and they must go to trial. IANAL though…just my TV understanding.
I wonder if someone admits to the crime in open court and under oath would be busted for perjury if later evidence (say DNA) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were innocent. :eek:
I read someone who made an interesting point about that quote: that what it actually is is a test of what you think the acceptable failure rate is.
Because it’s obviously impossible for NO innocent person to EVER be convicted. The necessities of that would certainly grind the entire system to a complete halt. So what value of X (replacing “ten” in the above quote) is acceptable? Five? Fifteen? A hundred? A thousand?
I don’t really think there should be an “acceptable failure rate” in this case. Of course, the goal of having no people who are wrongfully convicted is unattainable, but we should be continually trying to reduce the number of people who are wrongfully convicted. Some methods of reducing this number would be unacceptable (such as requiring such a high burden of proof that no one could ever be convicted of anything), but I don’t believe we’re doing as well as we can even drawing only from acceptable methods. And we probably never will have achived this maximum, especially when you consider that “as well as we can” keeps improving with improved technologies for analyzing evidence.
My point is, we should never just say “Oh well, there’s only one person per X who’s wrongfully convicted. That’s good enough.” We should say, “What reasonable steps can we take to reduce the number of wrongfully convicted people further?”
But a parole board is not an appeal court. They can’t overturn your conviction; you’re convicted whether you get parole or not. They aren’t equipped to hear the kind of evidence that could possibly exonerate you either. All they can do is decide if you’re sufficiently reformed to get out of jail early.
