Parole

[Bangkok]

A certain gentlemen has recently been released after serving less than half his sentence for sex crimes.  he maintains his innocence / justification / sickening claptrap.  Convicted murders are kept in prison to the last day of their sentence and sometimes beyond if they don't admit their guilt, even where the the original conviction may well be unsafe.  I always thought that parole involved the acceptance of guilt and the need to rehabilitate - am I wrong? 

[abfandango]

Was wondering that very thing myself. And it's a sex crime....so you let him out if it's safe. But we say he did it, he says he didn't, so how could he have confronted it to get over it? Bit scary to me.

[bernardo]

I share your concerns, and I suspect that the real reason for the lack of flexibility is the need to avoid jail overcrowding.

[luckyboy]

In a pickle is right i'm afraid..

Can understand peoples frustration though, after witnessing that appalling spectacle yesterday.

Don't even want to mention his name, i nearly spat my dinner out when i listened to his interview on the tv news...revolting slime.

[kempie]

What about the case of Stephen Downing, convicted of the murder of Wendy Sewell (the so-called 'Bakewell Tart') and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1974.

His refusal to admit his crime meant that he was classified as "IDOM" (In Denial of Murder) and ineligible for parole.

Downing served 27 years in prison until he was released on appeal in 2001. In 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed Downing's conviction, finding it to be unsafe.

As a postscript, two years later, when Derbyshire police concluded their reinvestigation of the murder they stated that he remained the only plausible suspect. In addition Stephen Downing had apparently confessed to his girlfriend and father that he had in fact murdered Wendy Sewell.

[cheyenne]

Just an afterthought,Why did maidstone prison allow this person out of the front gate?Dont they have a back door!!

[Bangkok]

IAP, I had not appreciated it was not mandatory to admit guilt.  In some ways I am more concerned if it is subjective decision regarding whether an admission is necessary.  I do understand the issue of overcrowding - but there are ways that can be addressed whilst maintaining the rehabilitation / punishment objectives, which do seem to have been overlooked here (and I am a woolly headed left leaning liberal)

[Peter Pedant]

There are two threads here.

Life sentences are mandatory for murder and so the idea of serving until the last day of the sentence does not really arise. Dr Vickers - in denial of murder - of his wife in oooo 1976 I think is holding the record for somone being kept inside because he will not address the act for which he was imprisoned.

Martin the shooter in the back of the burglar was praised for denying guilt for killing the burglar by the way.

For other sentences, you have to be let out if you have served 2/3 of the sentence with a record of good behaviour,

You are or were eligible for parole after 1/3.

These ratios may have changed over thirty years.

[Peter Pedant]

Lots of people deny they have done the thing that they were convicted of.

Are we saying that once one was convicted, that one MUST have done the thing he was convicted of?

Tell that to the irish terrorists - all of whom have been let out after they obligingly confessed to crimes, erm they couldnt have done.......