Innocent prisoner's dilemma

The innocent prisoner's dilemma, or 'Parole Deal', is a detrimental effect of a legal system which does not recognize the possibility that its judgements may be imperfect. When an innocent person is wrongly convicted of a crime, legal systems which require the individual to admit guilt, for example as a prerequisite step leading to parole, punish an innocent person for their integrity, and reward a person lacking in integrity.

United States law professor Daniel Medwed says convicts who go before a parole board maintaining their innocence, are caught in a Catch-22 which he calls the innocent prisoner’s dilemma. A false admission of guilt and remorse by an innocent person at a parole hearing may prevent a later investigation proving their innocence. In United States law, contrary to popular assumption, the purpose of the appeals process is not to find and overturn wrongful convictions. In 2010 it was suggested that a new law be introduced so that actual innocence could become legal grounds for an appeal to be made.

Example cases

Stephen Downing

The Stephen Downing case involved the conviction and imprisonment in 1974 of a 17-year-old council worker, Stephen Downing, for the murder of a 32 year old legal secretary, Wendy Sewell. His conviction was overturned in 2002, after Downing had served 27 years in prison. The case is thought to be the longest miscarriage of justice in British legal history, and attracted worldwide media attention as the "Bakewell Tart" murder. The case was featured in the 2004 BBC drama In Denial of Murder Mr. Downing claimed that if he falsely confessed he would have been released over a decade earlier. Because he did not admit to the crime he was classified as "IDOM" (In Denial of Murder) and ineligible for parole under British Law.

Herbert Murray

Herbert Murray was convicted of murder in 1979 said "When the judge asked me did I have anything to say, I couldn't say, because tears were coming down and I couldn’t communicate. I couldn't turn around and tell the family that they got the wrong man." The judge said he believed the defense’s alibi witnesses however the judge was required by law to respect the jury’s decision. After being locked up for 19 years, his parole officer said "Nineteen years is a long time. [....] But you’re no closer to the rehabilitative process than when you first walked into prison. The first step in that process is the internalization of guilt. You need to do some serious introspection Mr. Murray and come to grips with your behaviour." Murray agreed with the parole officer, but maintained his innocence "I agree! But again, I just didn’t do it.".

In a news interview, Herbert Murray says he went before a parole board 4 times, maintaining his innocence until the fifth, "I said what the hell, let me tell these people what they want to hear." he admitted to the parole board that he committed the crime and was taking responsibility "I felt like I sold my soul to the devil. Because before, I had that strength, because I stood on the truth. [...] I became so desperate to get out, I had to say something. I had to say something because what I said before didn’t work." his parole was denied. After 29 years prison, Medwed’s Second Look clinic, a group dedicated to the release of innocent prisoners, assisted lawyers in his eighth parole board hearing which was successful, releasing him onto indefinite parole. Overturning the original conviction would be hampered by his admissions of guilt at his parole hearings.

External links

• New York Times video regarding the Herbert Murray case.