Above is a copy of the only rationale that has been provided to Chuck for his last parole denial in November 2013. It lists the reasons for the denial as:
"Your risk and needs assessment indicating your level of risk to the community,"
"Reports, evaluations and assessments/level of risk indicates your risk to the community," and,
"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed."
As concerned citizens, we would like to know what the "risk and needs assessment" entails, as well as what "reports, evaluations and assessments" are being used to make this determination. Who are these reports, evaluations and assessments from? Each of the 7 officials at SCI Retreat where Chuck is held have recommended him for parole. These are the prison guards and personnel that Chuck has contact with on a day to day basis.
In addition, 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 need this matter rectified before Chuck's next parole hearing, scheduled to be held in November 2014.