Friday, August 9, 2013
Above is a copy of the only rationale that has been provided to Phil for his last parole denial in August 2013. It lists the reasons for the denial as:
"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed," and
"Your refusal to accept responsibility for the offense(s) committed."
As concerned citizens we need to know, 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 Phil's next parole hearing, scheduled to be held in June 2015.