Is admitting guilt/showing remorse a requirement for early parole?

In watching various jail realted real life shows, it seems from most parole hearings that before they will even consider you for early release, they want you to admit what you did, and show some sort of remorse. Does anyone know for sure if this is a requirement? If so, this seems like anitquated thinking. I can understand decades ago the notion that no one in jail is innocent, but nowadays with the dozens of people proven without a doubt to be innocent of various crimes, I would think the parole board would have to have the sense to know that at least some of the people they see who claim innocence are in fact innocent. Also I have seen a few of the prisoners say something like “I’ll never get early parole becasue I won’t go in there and admit something I didn’t do.”

Also, if you have for years claimed you were innocent, and at your first hearing you admit guilt, wouldn’t it be obvious you wsere changing your stance to get the chance at parole?

The number of truly innocent people convicted of crimes is very low. VERY low. The system is set up to ensure that (all that “beyond a reasonable doubt” stuff, you know). So I doubt that it happens very often that the prisoner is truly innocent and hoist on the horns of the dilemma of the parole board hearing.

Bricker may have better data on the numbers involved.

Obviously, parole requirements are going to vary from state to state (and from states to the federal prison system). To use one example, it looks like the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles uses a point system to determine fitness for parole, taking into account factors such as the severity of the offense, criminal and employment history, behavior while incarcerated, etc. Doesn’t mention admission of guilt or demonstrations of remorse, although it does mention that the board can use factors outside the guidelines in making their decision.

How low is low when we are talking about wrongfully taking away years of an innocent man’s life? Personally I think false imprisonment is the worst thing my government can do in my name, and there is no acceptable percentage by which we can say our vigilance is good enough.

So how many are we talking about? Here is a good study, covering the period from 1989 through 2003:

So is 340 proven wrongful convictions in 15 years so low as to be negligible? Or is it a shockingly high statistic that indicts the system that allowed it to happen?

The parole hearings purpose isn’t to find out whether the guy is guilty or not - that’s what trials are for. The parole hearing is to find out whether the prisoner is rehabilitated or not. To get parole, you have to convince the board that you have seen the error of your ways, and will be a good boy from now on. Obviously they won’t be convinced if you don’t even admit guilt or express any remorse.

Parole isn’t a declaration of innocence. Even if you are granted parole, you are still a convicted criminal, and can be thrown back in prison if you don’t stick to the conditions of your parole.

In Britain it is a prerequisite that you must admit that you are guilty of the crime for which you were convicted before being considered for parole.

What if you are an absolutely model prisoner who fills all the criteria for parole except that of admitting guilt, because you genuinely believe you were wrongly convicted?

I guess there must be innocent people behind bars who pretend to be guilty. Quite sad.

Could you weasel past that British admitting guilt bit with a broad statement?
“I am truly sorry for the pain and sufferring I 'ave caused my fellow man. Forcing discomfort on other members of society is the essence of crime, and I deeply regret those times in the past when I have deprived others of that happiness and convenience what was rightfully theirs, and the Crown of funds it should not have had to expend to apprehend and punish me.”
Everyone has sinned and broken some laws, so that isn’t lying per se.
Or do they actually want you to confess to beating up Mrs. Old Lady and robbing Mr. Liquor Store Operator at the times you were accused of having done so?

" 'ave "

Funny.

Like the classic piece of London graffiti:

AVE MARIA
Don’t mind if I do…

In Britain, every prisoner when brought into the system (and to an extent even prior to being sentenced) must work upon their sentence plan.

The sentence plan is absolutely crucial and cannot be underestimated.

During the early report write ups, the offence is examined, along with the main reasons for the occurrance.

The original offence might well be drug related, but at the back of this, the reasons could be poor education, very often it is low level mental and sociological problems.

I believe I have posted figure before on the astonishingly high numbers of mental illness and social problems, along with the almost unbelievably bad education levels of most prisoners.

The idea is that the vast majority of offenders wil be released at some point, its very desirable that when released, the offender has addressed the issues that led them into offending, or what failed on their previous time in prison that led them to reoffend (with up tp 80% reoffending rates this is a big issue)

Its not just a case of admitting guilt, it is a recognition of what needs to be worked on to prevent more crime.

Admitting guilt is simply words, nothing more, it is realising that, for example, the drug taking led to the burglary, but the drug taking itself was because the offender was excluded from mainstream society by their unemployability, which could in turn lead to the conclusion that the offender has extremely poor education, perhaps becuase they were excluded from school because they were disruptive.

You can go a long way into an offenders history, with multiple factors and influences that have drawn them into crime.

Other matters could be emotional immaturity, the offender resorted to violence because they simply were not mature enough to understand that there are many ways of dealing with conflict, so part of the work they may have to do is to develop the social skills necassary to see the other options (even when provoked)

To even begin dealing with these matters, and the necessary eduction/training/therapy, the whole must be supported by some sort of motivation not to offend again, or at the least, reduce the level of harm, perhaps by changing the drug of choice.

If a prisoner does not accept their responsibility for their role in their offence, and perhaps any flaws in their background and character, its is not realistically possible to engage in a meaningful attempt to rehabilitate.

If a prisoner cannot accept the real reasons for their offence, and if they do not truly accept their guilt, then they will not be able to work on their problems, so it makes sense to keep them in prison as long as possible to keep the public safe.

Dear Lord, how modern and well-conceived.
I’m skeptical it happens like that in the US, but then again I’ve never gone to a prison except during that one ‘scared straight’ program in 6th grade.
Of course, a number of systems in the US are doing away with parole altogether: structured sentencing gives you a set term in many cases, at which point you’ll be released barring further offenses while incarcerated.

What is your solution then? What justice system do you envision that will have a 100% no-wrong-convictions rate?

I agree that false imprisonment is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. I also think letting criminals roam the streets with impunity is pretty scary.

I have never heard of a fool-proof system. I am anxiously awaiting the details of yours.

Out of how many? There are something like 2 million people in prison at any given time. That is an extremely low number. Of course not if it is you or someone in your family in prison for something you didn’t do. But come on, should the entire legal system be thrown out because it is not perfect? Of course it is not perfect, it relies on humans. What would you replace it with? Nothing? Anarchy? Lets have no laws because it is impossible to be 100% correct? I don’t understand your point.

Ditto :smack:

But what happens to Mr Intelligent-Nice-Middle-Class-White-Churchgoer who has never had an overdue library book or a parking fine, and gets wrongly accused of, say, chopping his wife into pieces and flushing her down the toilet?

He goes to the parole interview and says to the Governor or whoever it might be:

I have been a model prisoner for the last x years. Unfortunately, I feel I can’t satisfy your definition of rehabilitation because I believe there is nothing for me to be rehabilitated from. I am intelligent, articulate, and educated. I believe myself to be non-violent and of no threat to society. I simply can’t express remorse at a crime I didn’t commit. I could come in here and do so, but that would be disingenuous of me."

What happens then?

Ask Colin Thatcher.

The chances of someone coming into prison for a serious offence is small, but it happpens.

The chances of an educated person coming into prison is even smaller, but it happens.

Some people end up in prison because their one offence is so serious it is the only alternative, I can think of one individual who was driving with excess alchohol, and killed three genrations of one family who were out cycling, he got 10 years or so.

He wasn’t an alchoholic, it’s just on this occasion he played the odds one more time and others were killed.

By any sentence plan measure, there isn’t much he needs to do, but he does have to spend time in prison as part of his punishment.

Rehabilitation is all very well, but punishment is also the remit of the penal system.

I’m sure I could also play the game of ‘what if?’ and come up with lots and lots of scnearios, but we do not build a judicial system based only on exceptions, or throw our hands up in horror and walk away from difficult decisions, what alternative would you propose ? Never locking up anyone because there is a miniscule chance they could be innocent?

Do we throw out a system because it made a mistake, and will certainly do so again ?

We cannot be idealistic, every prison system in the world has problems, ours is by no means perfect, but its not like we can throw the whole thing out and wait awhile until we can think of something better, one that never ever makes mistakes, through malice, incompetance or ignorance.

This is what we have, we make do and try improve it, we don’t move too quick, we don’t always move in the right direction, what is your alternative then ??

Just curious, why did you feel the need to throw white in there. In italics.

ETA I don’t mean to imply that there haven’t been inequaties in the legal system according to race, especially at some times and in some places. I just can’t understand why you chose that wording in your question. Doesn’t seem relevant to your question.

Also ETA since I see you are in Australia, when he flushes his wife down the toilet, what direction does the water go?