UKH

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/helen-s-law-killer-refused-parole-for...

Am I alone in being quite worried by this? The "killer" in this case, though found guilty, has insisted on his innocence throughout. Miscarriages of justice can and do occur. Should a wrongly convicted person, who clearly cannot reveal where a body is hidden, be treated more harshly when being considered for parole than a correctly convicted person who does reveal this.  Arguably, to avoid further injustice to a wrongly convicted person, parole decisions should be based solely on behaviour in prison and likelihood of re-offending, not on whether the prisoner has shown contrition or remorse.

Martin

If the original conviction was unsound then it should have been challenged. You have no reason to think it was other than his protestations of innocence. I'm not an expert, but I expect many criminals never truly accept the horror of their crimes.

I think I support this law. Although I don't generally think much of campaigns to change the law when run by grieving relatives.

Pretty much what Dan said. Decisions must be made based on the situation as it has been judged, that is what the judgement is for, after all.
As for criteria for the release of prisoners, I think behaviour in prison and likelihood of reoffending are two good criteria but not all there should be to it. I don't think telling people where a body is necessarily signifies contrition or remorse, to me it would signify empathy; the ability to put yourself in the shoes of the family and imagine how telling them where the body was might make them feel. And a demonstration of empathy would, in my opinion, be an excellent indicator of whether someone is suitable for release - committing crimes is psychologically a lot harder if you can empathise with your victims, ergo, less chance of future crimes.

I'm sure a psychologist will be along shortly to explain how wrong I am though!

Pretty remarkable to thinking telling the police where you HID THE BODIES gets you earlier release. 

Isn't refusing to admit guilt anyway a more or less insuperable obstacle to being given parole?

jcm

From the article:

"Under the law, killers could still be released if no longer deemed a risk to the public, even if they refuse to disclose information. But the Parole Board will be legally required to consider whether they have cooperated with inquiries as part of their assessment.

Human rights laws prevent the UK introducing a “no body, no parole” rule, which the government said may have faced successful legal challenges in the courts.

It is hoped the form the legislation has taken will lead to more killers owning up to their crimes, providing answers for grieving families."

Which seems reasonable to me.

But I bet it's very important to the relatives of the victims 

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that if you have been wrongly convicted, and know you have been wrongly convicted, the only way to achieve parole is to admit guilt? Is it right to penalise someone who is innocent for continuing to protest their innocence?

Interesting answers from everyone, but mostly it seems to me predicated on an assumption that all convictions are sound, which we know is not the case, from the (admittedly small) number that are reversed on retrial, sometimes years later.

Martin

If he took them to where he 'left' the body and it wasn't there could he claim amnesia or the length of time passed? Could many people go back to a particular spot after the passage of many years?

The concerning, to say the least, case of Stephen Downing was one where he served many years more than he would have had he admitted the murder in question. It's a tough call but miscarriages can and do occur. 

I think it's difficult to expect a parole board to treat equally a killer who seems to show genuine remorse and who is unlikely to commit the same offence again with one who shows no remorse at all and by extension would feel no reluctance about re-offending again in the same way.

That seems very much the case in the US - I've heard of a number of cases like that. I guess the obvious response is that that person was found not to be innocent by a court, they can protest as much as they like but they are guilty to the system.

That's not what the article says

"Under the law, killers could still be released if no longer deemed a risk to the public, even if they refuse to disclose information. But the Parole Board will be legally required to consider whether they have cooperated with inquiries as part of their assessment."

IIRC In the Carl Bridgewater murder case, Michael Hickey, the youngest of the 4 convicted, protested his innocence and refused to be considered for parole.

Eventually the convictions were overturned

I had never heard of this case before but it sounds like a thoroughly unsafe conviction to the point where based on what I have read it would seem more likely than not that he is innocent

In itself Helen's Law sounds pretty reasonable, but of course it only works if the person in question is actually guilty beyond reasonable doubt which I would say is in question here

I share your concern. I have personal experience of a friend suffering what I regarded as a miscarriage of justice, albeit in a much less serious case than the one to which you refer. I was shocked by the way what looked to me like poor decision-making and incompetence piled up. It rather shook my confidence in the system. I had always somewhat thoughtlessly accepted the oft-repeated assurance that ours was "the best in the world" but now I'd be very nervous if I found myself stuck in it. I realise this may well be unjustified. I know there are some legal professionals on here - can anyone point me at any kind of analysis of the system's fairness/effectiveness, ideally with some international comparisons for context?

I haven’t read the report you’ve linked but the Guardian’s article on this quotes the Parole Board’s report as saying the refusal wasn’t just based on not disclosing where the body was:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/27/helens-law-killer-refused-p...

This is a major problem in the States,to save time and money and increase conviction rates a lesser sentence is dangled in front of someone often equating to the time they have been in remand that’s the carrot, the stick is if you contest and lose you could potentially spend a decade in prison as punative sentences are handed down for turning down a plea bargain if your found guilty, many people take the advice of their lawyers (underfunded and harassed public defenders) and take the rap despite being innocent because the risk of defending yourself and losing  is too high.

This isn’t what most of us would recognise as justice.

I'd imagine it's significant enough to recall, unless under the influence of drugs or some mental illness. Many killers aren't spur of the moment and plan everything to the last detail. I think after a life sentence not disclosing is some how the only bit of power they hold and won't let it go.

Granted there are allegedly folk, some with senior roles in government who can't even recall their exams results! Amnesia is perhaps quite common.

All of the paroles board's complaints though are consistent with him being innocent. I'm not saying that he definitely is innocent but the OPs complaint was that Helen's law would stop a potentially innocent person from getting out. Emphasizing if, If he is innocent that is currently the main stumbling block to him being released

Parole board decisions are informed by a multitude of reports from multiple disciplines in order to provide the best possible risk assessment for that individual’s release on parole. They’re not a mechanism for assessing the safety of the original conviction or determining some abstract “deserving ness”. But refusing to divulge where a body was hidden would be seen as a red light in terms of a willingness to atone, show empathy towards family members, or just to clear the slate. Parole isn’t a gift or a benefit, it’s a rehabilitation tool, which you would not likely want to deploy in the circumstances described.

Absolutely, and plea bargaining has also been shown time and time again to be systemically racist.

The BBC recently did a decent podcast series on the Baltimore PD gun trace task force scandal. It ended with a number of cops going to prison for long stints but not until after years of their stealing drugs and money, selling drug, failing to do their jobs leading to deaths, framing people for crimes, possibly even murdering another officer, but one of the guys who they sent to prison totally falsely ended up with a ridiculous sentence because he wouldn't take a plea deal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xtvk9/episodes/player He got out when the whole task force got taken down by the feds but had already done many years, and IIRC ended up losing his life not so long after he was released and got some compensation.

It’s something of a Catch-22 situation if you are innocent. You cannot show remorse, or disclose the location of the body, if you are innocent.

It can be more acute an issue in the US, where plea bargaining and the death penalty mean that innocent people are more likely to end up on death row.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner%27s_dilemma

The Stephen Downing case is interesting in this regard. Convicted as a juvenile with a learning disability, refused to admit guilt, released after 27 years because he was innocent. If he had admitted it, he might of been out in 15.

If the conviction is so obviously unsafe then it could be successfully overturned on appeal.

Another particularly sad example similar to this was the case of Stefan Kiszko who was wrongly convicted for the murder of Lesley Molseed

Well, I'd be with you if the article said what the title implies...but it doesn't and the setup described seems reasonable to me.

Yes, I know the case well, as both Lesley Mildred and Stefan Kiszko lived less than a mile from where I am sitting and I was living in the town at the time of his release.

Kiszko “only” served 16 years, another famous miscarriage at the time was Judith Ward, think she served 18 years. Same lead investigating officer, Dick Holland. He made a complete bollocks of the Yorkshire Ripper investigation as well.

If I'd buried a body, I'm pretty sure I'd remember where, because of it's significance, but I guess on Dartmoor or Kinder, or somewhere relatively featureless it could be easier to lose the location.

I reckon the significance of events can engrave places into one's mind....

My point was really that withholding evidence as to where the body is hidden is not the only criterion used - the Guardian article points out towards the end that this would fall foul of human rights law. So other criteria such as cooperation and behaviour are used. In this case it looks to me that the points that were held against him were largely in keeping with someone who considered themselves innocent - why would you take part in training to address your offending if you didn't believe you'd offended? The only point which does look problematic is the "marked lack of empathy for those involved in the case". 

On a more light hearted note, I told a friend that with 'A friend will help move a sofa, while a true friend will help with moving a body' in mind, that I reckoned she was in the second category, she got back a while later, surprised to find she'd been thinking of places to hide one. To be a good judge of character is handy whatever the circumstance.

I reckon if one was going to hide a body, there'd probably be some thought which would go into where to put it, which would make the location stick.

Here's another one. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-59076251  

If the conviction has been made in a criminal court where the onus of proof to a jury is "beyond reasonable doubt" then its fair to assume the conviction is safe until proven otherwise. Yes, there are miscarriages of justice but these are few compared to the number of those correctly convicted  and those who are guilty but have escaped justice because the burden of proof has not been established. 

Not quite as easy with half a dozen, as Myra Hindley and to some extent Brady showed.

As with most moors, Saddleworth Moor is huge and pretty featureless insomuch as one peat grough or hag looks like thousands of others.

What we are talking about here are convictions for murder that normally carries a considerable tariff even before parole is considered.  If a conviction is unsound then I would expect it to to have been successfully challenged before there was any consideration of parole (and I know this isn't always the case, but it is probably as good as we can get)

I believe you're applying your own level of intelligence to murderers. A lot of them are apparently none too bright and will not have thought about anything like that beforehand since that would require planning and won't be able to think about it well enough after the deed either.

Ha, perhaps it's just the ones who get caught, who didn't think things through so much. That's a dark thought, now that I've just had it, hopefully there's not so many who don't get caught.

I was reading the wiki article on him earlier, I don't remember it happening but it might be that he was released the year after I had left the UK. Anyway, it sounded really interesting and as I now live not very far from Bakewell, I ended up ordering a second hand copy of the book about the case "Town with pity", written by the editor who long campaigned for Downing. I pass through Bakewell regular and it has always struck me as a rather pleasant if twee place, so the title just struck me as quite interesting, if a bit funny!

Not necessarily, an appeal, I believe, normally requires fresh evidence or a demonstration that the trial was flawed in some way. Just saying, 'the jury got it wrong' doesn't get you an appeal. In this particular case one piece of evidence is used to convict him, large pools of blood found by the police on their 3rd!!?? inspection of the car weeks later. In his favour is a wealth of evidence demonstrating that he could not have been at the alleged seen of the crime at the same time as the alleged victim. I say alleged because there is reason to believe that she could be alive and hence no body!!! In my opinion, the blood evidence was probably fabricated by the police, it's definitely not beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't. Google the case

I think your comment misses the point.  If there is evidence to convict,  beyond reasonable doubt,  then we have to accept the conviction as sound and proceed on that basis.  Just because someone says they're innocent doesn't mean they are and if substantial evidence emerges to suggest otherwise,  then they can have that presented to the court. You seem to suggest that we should have a 2 tier system where we half believe those who still claim innocence even after conviction.

It is a problem though. Victor Nealon was wrong convicted of rape and served over 10 extra years, (could have been out in 6.5, served 17) because he never admitted to the rape. DNA evidence has now lead to his conviction being overturned. Andrew Malkinson has an almost identical story, 10 extra years for not admitting to the rape that he was convicted for, his case hasn't been overturned yet but he now appears to have DNA evidence proving that it was someone else and GMP have admitted to misleading the court*!

Basically, if you could 100% trust the police to never mislead the courts then not releasing people who don't admit to the crimes would be a reasonable policy but as it is, its not a policy that I am particularly comfortable with

*https://www.thejusticegap.com/dna-breakthrough-in-case-of-man-who-spent-17-...

The legal system is, unfortunately, not quite as simple as that.

I agree, that dreadful miscarriages of justice do occur but the solution is to make sure those don't occur through negligence or deliberate misleading. 

I agree with you, if there has been a miscarriage of justice, and historically it does happen, then it's like a double punishment.  It's the same principle that provides one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty, where again, historically, miscarriages of justice have occurred. If you haven't committed the crime then then you obviously can't know where the body is.

I guess the parole board might argue likelihood of reoffending and remorse could be linked. They surely have to work on the basis they're dealing with safe rightful convictions, any other position constantly second guessing the preceding layers of the justice system rapidly becomes impossible, it's not their role to identify and correct the injustices which do occur. Still, it really sucks for those wrongfully convicted then repeatedly passed for parole who might slip through the gap!

jk

It is a difficult one,  the truly innocent obviously cannot give the location of a body. Although miscarriages of justice do occur I generally believe the decisions of a jury are reasonable. However, I found this link about the case -  https://insidetime.org/the-case-of-glyn-razzell/ - .

It is written from a particular angle and might omit information that could lead to a different conclusion, but if it is correct and complete it does raise a few issues.

Dave

Not so, really. I think we should have a one tier system where the same rules regarding eligibility for parole apply regardless of whether you admit your guilt or continue to maintain your innocence. I admit it's a tricky question, but in my view there are too many miscarriages of justice - a number of which have been highlighted in this thread - to presume without question that any particular conviction is sound. As someone mentions above, this is one of the strongest arguments put forward against the death penalty.

Martin

Court decides whether some one is guilty. Parole decide whether someone is suitable for release. If that guilty person shows no remorse the parole board should take that into account. If they aren't guilty in the first place, that is  a matter for the courts. I don't see how it could be any other way.

Leaving aside the wrongly convicted debate there is a simple fix for the what should and shouldn't be involved in the parole system.

Zero parole for murderer's. I don't care how bad you feel, I don't care if you are likely to re offend or not. You intentionally take a life you spend the rest of yours in prison. The victim can't say the right things and get their life back so why should the killer.

Because a society that tries to rehabilitate offenders, rather than just punish them, will (all other things being equal) be a nicer society to live in?

I'm a big believer in rehabilitation , towards that end I have hired a couple of ex offenders.

But not for murder.

I find it interesting how there can be certain moral lines, with them being individual to the person, I feel similarly to you, but regarding rape and child sexual abuse, because of the enduring legacy it can leave the victims with. 30 years or something might be my minimum sentence for those crimes, just to leave a legacy for the people who carry them out which they can't shake off too, a burden of regrets of lost life chances and what have you (should they be young enough to leave jail alive), it strikes me as the least they should get.

Stepping back from my emotional thinking, I think Ciro has a point, and that genuine freewill looks increasingly intangible or difficult to pin down as something we have, which raises all kinds of ethical questions to do with punishing offenders. Things keep appearing in New Scientist and similar which suggest we plausibly don't actually have freewill. 

Perhaps in 300 years the harsh sentences may be looked back upon as being rather inhumane, compared to the methods they use towards changing people's behaviour for the better, using in depth knowledge of the brain and how it controls what we do.

Hiring people for murder could be illegal 😏

joking aside, good on you.

The problem with this approach I fear is that we'll all have to be prepared to pay higher taxes to strengthen the prison system. If there's no incentive for prisoners to behave they will generally become much more challenging to control. Or are you suggesting solitary confinement for life?

Martin