Today Janet was denied parole and given a three year hit, meaning she will not be eligible for parole for 3 years despite having a positive recommendation for parole from the prison where she is held. The reasons for the denial listed on the notice (see below) were:
Free the Move 9: Everything you need to know to support parole for the Move prisoners!
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Janine's 2013 Parole Denial
Above is a copy of the only rationale that has been provided to Janine for her last parole denial in June 2013. It lists the reasons for the denial as:
"Your failure to demonstrate motivation for success"
"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed," and
"Your negative interest in parole"
As concerned citizens, we ask what exactly is a prisoner who maintains his innocence supposed to say or do to not minimize or deny the nature and circumstances of the offense(s)? This catch-22 phenomenon is referred to as "the innocent prisoner's dilemma" by law professor Daniel Medwed. It is unfair and unethical to require a prisoner who may have been wrongly convicted to provide false admission of guilt or remorse.
We also need to know, what could they possibly be judging as lack of 'motivation for success' and 'negative interest in parole?' The officials at SCI Cambridge Springs, where Janine is held, have recommended her for parole. These are the prison guards and personnel that she has contact with on a day to day basis. Wouldn't they be some of the best people, in addition to Janine's family and friends, to determine whether she is motivated to succeed and has a positive interest in parole?
We need this matter rectified before Janine's next parole hearing, scheduled to be held in May 2016.
Debbie's 2013 Parole Denial
Above is a copy of the only rationale that has been provided to Debbie for her last parole denial in June 2013. It lists the reasons for the denial as:
"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed," and
"The negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney."
Please take a moment to write a letter in support of parole for Debbie prior to her next hearing scheduled for in or after May 2014. Even though the letter is addressed to the Parole Board, send your letter to The Move Organization at P.O. Box 19709, Philadelphia, PA 19143 so they can be collected before they are passed on to the Board. Please make sure your letter arrives by May 4th, and we will update the website asap with the outcome of her hearing.
Sample letter:
[Ideally, rephase this in your own words and send to the address above, but you can also download and print it so you can just write your name and address at the top and sign your name]
Board
of Probation and Parole
Attn:
Inmate Inquiry
1001
South Front Street, Suite 5300
Harrisburg,
PA 17104
Regarding
Parole Hearing for: Debbie Sims OO-6307
Debbie
Sims has her next parole hearing scheduled for May of 2014. As a concerned citizen interested in helping
Debbie successfully transition into life outside prison, I am writing to ask
that you please parole her at this hearing. She has served over 35 years
of a 30-100 year sentence for third-degree murder, even though the average
sentence for that charge is 10-15 years. She is still in prison years
after her minimum sentence, despite having no major disciplinary problems in the
last three decades.
The document provided to Ms. Sims for
her last parole denial in June 2013 lists the reasons for the denial as:
"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed," and
"The negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney."
I am concerned that Ms. Sims maintaining her innocence is seen as an attempt to minimize or deny the nature and circumstances of the offense(s), even while there is evidence that corroborates that the shot was fired from a location where it is well known she was nowhere near. This phenomenon is referred to as "the innocent prisoner's dilemma" by law professor Daniel Medwed who asserts that it is unfair and unethical to require a prisoner who may have been wrongly convicted to provide false admission of guilt or remorse.
In regards to the negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney, I believe this is outweighed by the fact that the officials at SCI Cambridge Springs, where Ms. Sims is held, have recommended her for parole. These are the prison guards and personnel that she has contact with on a day-to-day basis as opposed to the prosecuting attorney who has had no contact with her at all in decades.
"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed," and
"The negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney."
I am concerned that Ms. Sims maintaining her innocence is seen as an attempt to minimize or deny the nature and circumstances of the offense(s), even while there is evidence that corroborates that the shot was fired from a location where it is well known she was nowhere near. This phenomenon is referred to as "the innocent prisoner's dilemma" by law professor Daniel Medwed who asserts that it is unfair and unethical to require a prisoner who may have been wrongly convicted to provide false admission of guilt or remorse.
In regards to the negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney, I believe this is outweighed by the fact that the officials at SCI Cambridge Springs, where Ms. Sims is held, have recommended her for parole. These are the prison guards and personnel that she has contact with on a day-to-day basis as opposed to the prosecuting attorney who has had no contact with her at all in decades.
Debbie
Sims has now spent most of her life in prison, and the recidivism rate for people
released at her age is very low. Please grant parole and allow her to be
a part of, and contribute to, society as free citizen, a loving mother and grandmother.
Sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)