|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 18, 2023 11:20:04 GMT
Oh course you are Pacifico….
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Aug 19, 2023 6:52:22 GMT
Claiming he was in an innocent prisoner's dilemma, Downing was unable to be paroled, as he did not admit to the crime. He was classified as "In Denial of Murder" and therefore ineligible for parole under English law. Just to clarify the Wiki c&p, there is nothing in English law that would prevent the parole of a prisoner maintaining innocence. In fact it would be unlawful for the Parole Board to deny parole solely on that ground.
The difficulty is in the risk assessment system which relies on various courses and interventions which, either in reality or in the prisoner's perception, require an admission. This was not just a perception in Mr Malkinson's case; during his time in prison the principal course for the 'rehabilitation' of sex offenders which fed into the risk assessment matrix required participants to discuss their offending behaviour. That particular intervention was changed a few years ago, but too late for Mr Malkinson.
I don't think there is much doubt that prisoners maintaining their innocence face more hurdles in achieving parole than those accepting their guilt. The difficulty, I suppose, is coming up with changes that offer the public the same degree of protection. A level of protection that some argue is already insufficient.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 19, 2023 8:20:22 GMT
Claiming he was in an innocent prisoner's dilemma, Downing was unable to be paroled, as he did not admit to the crime. He was classified as "In Denial of Murder" and therefore ineligible for parole under English law. Just to clarify the Wiki c&p, there is nothing in English law that would prevent the parole of a prisoner maintaining innocence. In fact it would be unlawful for the Parole Board to deny parole solely on that ground.
The difficulty is in the risk assessment system which relies on various courses and interventions which, either in reality or in the prisoner's perception, require an admission. This was not just a perception in Mr Malkinson's case; during his time in prison the principal course for the 'rehabilitation' of sex offenders which fed into the risk assessment matrix required participants to discuss their offending behaviour. That particular intervention was changed a few years ago, but too late for Mr Malkinson.
I don't think there is much doubt that prisoners maintaining their innocence face more hurdles in achieving parole than those accepting their guilt. The difficulty, I suppose, is coming up with changes that offer the public the same degree of protection. A level of protection that some argue is already insufficient.
I read recently the body set up to look at possible miscarriages of justice prevaricated in this case on cost grounds,very sad if it’s correct justice costs money but if it’s not spent then there’s no justice. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 19, 2023 13:23:20 GMT
Claiming he was in an innocent prisoner's dilemma, Downing was unable to be paroled, as he did not admit to the crime. He was classified as "In Denial of Murder" and therefore ineligible for parole under English law. Just to clarify the Wiki c&p, there is nothing in English law that would prevent the parole of a prisoner maintaining innocence. In fact it would be unlawful for the Parole Board to deny parole solely on that ground.
The difficulty is in the risk assessment system which relies on various courses and interventions which, either in reality or in the prisoner's perception, require an admission. This was not just a perception in Mr Malkinson's case; during his time in prison the principal course for the 'rehabilitation' of sex offenders which fed into the risk assessment matrix required participants to discuss their offending behaviour. That particular intervention was changed a few years ago, but too late for Mr Malkinson.
I don't think there is much doubt that prisoners maintaining their innocence face more hurdles in achieving parole than those accepting their guilt. The difficulty, I suppose, is coming up with changes that offer the public the same degree of protection. A level of protection that some argue is already insufficient.
I stand corrected I did not know they had changed the Law as you say it came too late for him |
|
