Author Archives: Phil Locke

(Editorial Note:  In no way do I want to minimize the issue of violence against women or children.  Rape is clearly a crime of violence, and must be dealt with appropriately.  Pedophile predation is abhorrant, and must also be dealt with sternly and appropriately.  But I think the issue has become – what actually is appropriate for dealing with the range of sex offenses, and in some cases, have we gone too far; and what does this mean for the wrongfully convicted?  It begs the age old question – does the punishment fit the crime?)

Woe be to the wrongfully convicted sex offender, because you’re not just a wrongfully convicted ‘felon.’  You’re a wrongfully convicted ‘sex offender,’ and the state makes sure you get some extra special attention.  Note that I’m careful to use the qualifier “wrongfully convicted” here, because in the case of sex offenders, when the justice system “gets it wrong,” the injustice gets amplified.  I’m not saying we should let actually guilty sex offenders off the hook, but the punitive measures have become so severe, that when someone is wrongfully convicted of a sex offense, the consequences they are forced to endure magnify the injustice.

Continue reading →

Parole.  Parole is the release from prison, prior to completion of full sentence, under supervised conditions.  The parolee is still considered to be serving his/her prison term.  The granting of parole is determined by a parole board, whose members are typically appointed by the governor of the state.  Currently, sixteen states have abolished parole completely, and four more have abolished it for violent felons.  This leaves 30 – 34 states where parole is still a potential path to early release for inmates.  The preconditions for parole are generally:  good behavior in prison, having achieved sufficient rehabilitation, believed not to be a danger to society, and means of support and a place to live after release.

Parole systems tend to operate in the “shadows” of the justice system.  Parole system activities rarely attract media coverage, unless it involves a very high profile case, like Charles Manson, and even then, the only coverage is “was parole granted or not?”  Parole boards cannot, and do not, determine innocence or guilt.  They absolutely presume guilt, and based upon that, can only determine whether a prisoner is suitable for early release.  I expect that the general public is largely clueless about how parole systems operate.  And as far as I can tell, parole boards are subject to no oversight, and have no accountability.

One of the less recognized aspects of the conditions required for grant of parole has to do with “having achieved sufficient rehabilitation.”  Parole boards commonly require that a prisoner “admit guilt and express remorse” before they will grant parole.  The parole officials in some states will insist that admission of guilt is not a precondition.  California law prohibits “admission of guilt” as a precondition for parole, and New Jersey parole board officials insist that “admission of guilt” is not a precondition for parole to be granted.  But it seems that this is an area where “theory” and “practice” do not necessarily agree.  And as I mentioned above, as far as I can tell, parole boards have no accountability or oversight to ensure that “admission of guilt” is, in fact, not a precondition.

Now, here’s the Catch 22.  An actually innocent, wrongfully convicted person serving a long prison term will, more likely than not, have to admit guilt and express remorse to be granted parole.  Not only does this mean that the innocent person would have to compromise his or her principles, and admit to a crime they did not commit, but in admitting guilt he or she also closes out any options they may have for eventual exoneration.

Continue reading →