Michael Ruwoldt

English 101: Rhetoric

Mr. Newman
1 December 2014
Parole Paradox
The prison system has been a very controversial topic for decades. Something that has a
lot of people talking is, if those whom have strong evidence of innocence, should they be
required to admit guilt to be granted for parole? Recently some parole boards have permitted the
release of some inmates without the traditional requirement that they admit their guilt. Admitting
guilt is essentially a prerequisite to receiving parole, which to some people would be the most
immediate way to achieve freedom, with some strings attached of course. But what if the inmate
was innocent? I suggest that those who have great evidence for being innocent should not have to
plead guilty for parole, there should be more to letting prisoners out on parole rather than them
claiming theyre guilty.
Prison inmates read the news, talk to each other, they all know the trends says (author).
Those inside the cells know for a fact that even a guilty man can be proven innocent. In most
cases the prisoners who are at the parole boards admit their guilt, but a very small percentage
will not because they claim theyre innocent.The parole board needs to create a system for that
small percentage. Those innocent need to have a compelling reason for their claim of
innocence says the former federal prosecutor Paul Cassell. Also Cassell stated that the prisoner
should be aware that if the parole board senses any form of lying or the claim is being made in
bad faith, then that can weigh against the prisoners release. The idea that Cassell has is one that
can be limited to those who are guilty trying to manipulate the parole board, because the risk of

their sentence can be extended. The former New York Supreme Court Judge Leslie Crocker
Snyder says that theres so many factors to be considered, including every aspect of the inmate's
prison history, attempts at education, lack of violent encounters in prison, motivation and what is
awaiting him or her on re-entry into society. The parole board shouldnt have to reopen any
cases but, if an inmate seems rehabilitated and doesnt agree with being guilty, the process
should be dealt with carefully. We can't devise a perfect system, since rules that are too stern
will create instances of injustice, but so will rules that arent enforced.
It's true that some innocent people get convicted. Fortunately, they are few indeed
compared to the huge number of well-grounded convictions. The former prison inmate Fernando
Bermudez was on the verge of his career and in a meaning relationship when he was incarcerated
for a crime that he didn't do. Bermudez is the perfect example after being stuck in a jail cell for
18 years he said I wrestled with many fears during my incarceration surrounded by violence, If
Bermudez claimed that he was guilty he would be a liar, all for a small chance of being released.
Daily, I was mentally and physically tortured with thoughts that a parole board would consider
me in denial and reject my freedom said Bermudez. Hes the prime example of why prison
inmates shouldnt have to claim that theyre guilty. During the 18 years Bermudez witnessed the
parole board deny release to inmates who maintained their innocence, like one friend who died
in prison after being denied parole every two years. The parole board has to create a system for
those who are innocent to prevent things like that from happening.
On the other side, author of the Prosecution Complex Daniel S. Medwed says that
those who claim their innocent cant be reliable. Prisoners know that they can get some lies in
here and there and Medwed explains that Studies indicate that parole officials not infrequently
fall prey to these manipulations; human beings, after all, are much worse at lie detection than we

like to believe. This shows that sometimes a guilty man can claim innocent and walk free, and
that wouldnt be fair to the actually innocent man still rotting away in a prison cell. One man
argued that in order for mercy to be bestowed, it must be earned. The justice system should look
at whether or not the inmate has earned their freedom rather than hearing their claims of
innocence, says Joshua Marquis, a district attorney in Oregon. The DNA technology in the
prison system is larger than ever now. Both Marquis and Medwed both agree that if a prisoners
cry of innocence is going to be heard, then that person has to have the DNA evidence to back it
up.
With some parole boards now releasing prisoners without them having to admit their
guilt, the cases of innocence has gone up. For over hundreds of years the parole board has been
traditionally focusing on the inmates admitting their guilt to even see a chance of freedom. This
can be changed by creating small systems and other valves for those who plead innocent.
Cassell, Snyder, and Bermudez would agree that those cases for innocence should be heard.
Though there are many on board with this attorneys like Marquis would say otherwise that those
who say theyre innocent has to earn it, and that not everyone is reliable. The inmates who
provide great evidence and DNA for their innocence should not have to plead guilty for parole,
but there has to be some rules that are strictly enforced to provide some of these innocent men
their freedom.

Works Cited
Bermudez, Fernando. I Feared Id Die in Prison for Maintaining My Innocence. New
York Times: Room for Debate. New York Times Company. 13 November 2014. Web 18
November 2014.
Cassell, Paul. The System Needs a Small Safety Valve for the Innocent. New York Times:
Room for Debate. New York Times Company. 13 November 2014. Web 18 November 2014.
Marquis, Joshua. Dont Incentivize Claim for Wrongful Conviction. New York Times: Room
for Debate. New York Times Company. 13 November 2014. Web 18 November 2014.
Medwed, Daniel. Confessions Are Not Reliable. New York Times: Room for Debate. New
York Times Company. 13 November 2014. Web 18 November 2014.
Snyder, Leslie. One of Many Factors to Consider. New York Times: Room for Debate. New
York Times Company. 13 November 2014. Web 18 November 2014.