Criminal Defense News

This Analysis Of Key Documents Produced By The British Prison Service And The Prison Reform Trust Shows The Unwillingness Of These Organizations To Acknowledge That The Courts Can Render Incorrect Verdicts That Lead To Wrongful Imprisonment

There are two key sources of information given to life prisoners regarding the structure of their sentences and the procedures through which they might be paroled. These are the booklets entitled, "Life Sentenced Prisoners" and "Parole Information Booklet." Using the format of "frequently asked questions and answers," these booklets pose questions that might be asked by inmates and then present answers from the perspectives of the Prison Service and Parole Board. In both booklets, one of the questions posed by a hypothetical inmate is, "What happens if I maintain my innocence?" In both booklets, the Prison Service and the Parole Board indicate they must accept the court's verdict and then proceed to inform the inmate about the importance of participation in prison rehabilitation programs and making every effort to remedy the harms caused by his/her crime. In essence, there is no "track" or special criteria for assessing prisoners who claim to be innocent. All are measured under the assumption that they are criminals who require rehabilitation as the measure for release on parole. Such a policy defies the statistics that show the fallibility of court verdicts. Instead of assuming that all life prisoners are guilty, there should be an assumption that a percentage will be innocent. Prisoners who so claim should not be measured by participation in rehabilitation they do not need, but rather be offered legal assistance for making appeals and counseling on how to cope in prison knowing they are innocent. They should not be forced to act as though they are guilty in order to be paroled. 41 references

Contact us now to obtain a free case review or want more information on our Cincinnati Criminal Defense Lawyers.

	Did You Know?
	Res Ipsa Loquitur - Literally, "a thing that speaks for itself." In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence.