Inspired by this story in the Globe and Mail.
The article says that Phillip Tallio was convicted in 1983 of having sexually assaulted and murdered his 22-month-old cousin, but that he has always denied having done it.
This is the part that troubles me:
Is this normal? I was always under the impression that an innocent person could keep denying all the way. Is parole really conditional on admitting/pretending that you did the deed?
Ah, I hadn’t seen that Tallio had signed a confession at the time. I guess that’s a major factor.
It’s not just in Canada. Wikipedia calls it the Innocent Prisoner’s Dilemma.
You may find this article interesting:
The ‘Catch 22’ of Parole for the Wrongfully Convicted
Also, here is a GD thread from 2008:
Yeah I would say it’s more about the remorse part and showing you’re a better person now. Kind of unfair for people who really haven’t committed the crime IMO.
“I am sorry I never did this.”
It’s the same problem with a plea deal - the person cannot simply say “I am innocent but it’s easier to take the deal than to fight it in court.”
There’s the case of Omar Khadr in the news in Canada today. He was arrested in Afghanistan after a firefight during the invasion of Afghanistan, and accused of throwing the grenade that killed a US army medic. He spent the last decade-plus in Guantanamo until about two years ago, after a few failed trials, to get transferred to Canada he had to plead guilty to the charges. Oh, and he was 15 at the time, he was dragged to Afghanistan by his crazy father, friend on bin Laden, when he was 10. (Since when do western countries prosecute the footsoldiers in a regular shooting war? Child soldiers?) So he had to plead guilty (after years of torture) to a charge he still denies.
Some jurisdictions avoid this problem by allowing the defendant to plead “no contest”.
In some states, he can. It’s called an Alford Plea.
Yeah, this is one of those idiosyncrasies/problems with the legal system. At the parole hearing, the prisoner is expected to show remorse and provide evidence of rehabilitation, which he can’t do if he has insisted he is not guilty the whole time. The same applies to sentencing, of course, where judges will often hand down a longer sentence because the defendant hasn’t admitted guilt and shown remorse. It really makes no sense to me.
“I’m appalled and saddened that this person was assaulted and killed. It was a horrendous crime. But I had nothing to do with it.”
I just don’t see the alternative here. To grant parole the convict should acknowledge his/her regret at having committed the crime. It isn’t the job of the parole board to declare someone innocent. If the authorities are convinced someone is not guilty then the courts should take the appropriate steps to free them. Parole is for guilty people who regret their crimes not innocent people who deny them. I understand this can lead to frustration on the part of the imprisoned but they cannot expect the parole board to deal with their complaints.