The innocent prisoner's dilemma, or parole deal, is a detrimental effect of a legal system in which admission of guilt can result in reduced sentences or early parole. When an innocent person is wrongly convicted of a crime, legal systems which need the individual to admit guilt — as, for example, a prerequisite step leading to parole — punish an innocent person for their integrity, and reward a person lacking in integrity. There have been cases where innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for claiming guilt, and remaining imprisoned and telling the truth. Individuals have died in prison rather than admit to crimes that they did not commit.
United States law professor Daniel Medwed says convicts who go before a parole board maintaining their innocence are caught in a catch-22 that he calls "the innocent prisoner’s dilemma".[1] A false admission of guilt and remorse by an innocent person at a parole hearing may prevent a later investigation proving their innocence.[2]
- ^ Harris, Rob (4 June 2010). "The 'Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma' - Video Library - The New York Times". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-05-31.
- ^ Medwed, Daniel S. (2007-01-29). "The Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma: Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings by Daniel Medwed :: SSRN". Iowa Law Review. Papers.ssrn.com. SSRN 960125.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search