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.
1 comment:
I was incarcerated with Janine for 7 years at Cambridge Springs Correctional Facility and she was such a tremendous help to me throughout the years. She and her sisters Debbie and Janet are three of the most loving and beautiful people I have ever met. They are wonderful people who don't deserve what has happened and what continues to happen to them. I was sorry to hear about Phil's death. Janine was there for me when I lost my mother while incarcerated and Debbie was a tremendous help to me during that very difficult time in my life. I only hope that one day they will get the freedom that they deserve.
Post a Comment