Denial - a One Sided Affair

Denial - a one sided affair

by John Taft

The police never lie, you can't get convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence alone and expert witnesses never slant their evidence to favour the prosecution. Of course the courts don't get it wrong but even in the unlikely event that they did, the Appeals system is all geared up to speedily free the truly innocent.
These are just some of the misconceptions that still seem to exist among many people, despite a catalogue of evidence to the contrary. Often these myths, that seem to portray our criminal justice system as 'whiter than white,' are expressed, either explicitly or implicitly, by prison staff in response to a prisoner who is maintaining their innocence of a crime they have been convicted of. Unfortunately, assumptions and speculation based on such myths are used as the basis of many reports that impact on the length of time a person can remain in custody. What is still commonly referred to as 'denial' can specifically reflect on 'risk factors' and this is particularly the case when it comes to mandatory lifers and the ever-increasing number of IPP sentenced prisoners. F or those truly innocent prisoners, justice in prisons is fundamentally undermined.
The state of 'denial' of course can and does exist among some prisoners, and not just those who deny all or any involvement in their crime. Forms of 'denial' can also encompass personal responsibility or consequences from someone's actions, although this is often termed 'minimisation.' As with everything to do with human behaviour, it can be an extremely complex area to try and understand. However, the fact that 'denial' can exist among some prisoners who claim innocence does not mean that all prisoners with such a claim are 'in denial'. In other words it is as illogical and unjust, particularly given the evidence of past miscarriages of justice, to generalise about prisoners as it is to generalise about anything else, particularly when dealing with an individual's perceived areas of risk.
Institutional denial
In prison, denial is always spoken of in terms of applying to a prisoner. However, given the proven history of miscarriages of justice in this country, when the Prison and Parole systems maintain a stance of 'everyone in prison must be considered guilty' it can be nothing less than institutional denial. After all, denial is classed as 'the refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth' and so a system that has been proven fallible, which continues to behave and represent itself as if it was infallible, can be guilty of nothing less. The 'unacceptable truth' is that the Criminal Justice System does make mistakes.
Cloak of Semantics
Of course it is now deemed inappropriate, by bodies such as the Parole Board, to use the term 'denial' in terms of a prisoner who does not accept their guilt. 'Maintaining their innocence' is the politically correct term now in favour. However the reality of the situation is that such prisoners, regardless of the terminology used, are still automatically penalised. Reports written that can directly affect the length of time an indeterminate sentenced prisoner remains in prison invariably include sections which state; 'until Mr So-and-So can provide a more open and honest account of the crime, his risk factors cannot be fully established.'
Such statements can and do impact dramatically when it comes to progression, particularly at the Parole stage. Whichever way you look at this, while the terminology of 'maintaining innocence' may be more politically correct, the outcome is the same as when the term 'denial' was used. The cloak of semantics achieves little or nothingif attitudes remain the same.
Likewise, it is now unlawful for parole to be refused simply on the grounds of the offence being denied, or for anything that is a consequence of the denial. That seems quite straightforward on the surface. If 'denial' means that a prisoner can't undertake a particular offending behaviour course then, you would think, that in itself cannot be a reason to deny parole.
The reality of the situation is of course different. Parole for indeterminate sentenced prisoners is dependant on the prisoner having reduced his 'risk factors' to an acceptable level. One of the directions given to the Parole board when considering the release of a Life Sentenced prisoner is:
whether the lifer has made positive and successful efforts to address the attitudes and behavioural problems which led to the commission of the index offence.
Another direction to the Parole Board reads:
... and the extent of any demonstrable insight into his/her attitudes and behavioural problems and whether he/ she has taken steps to reduce risk through the achievement of life sentence plan targets.
If you're maintaining your innocence then you're well and truly caught by the short and curlies by these directions.
How do you address the attitudes and behavioural problems that led to something you didn't do? Likewise, how do you reduce something that doesn't exist?
In a cruel twist of the situation, those most affected are the prisoners who have led the most law abiding lives and don't have any previous convictions.
If you do have 'previous' then at least you can undertake courses based on your willingness to discuss and address behaviour associated with past offences and so at least satisfy the Parole Board up to a point. However, if you don't have any other offences on your record, and there are a lot of mandatory lifers who don't, you're pretty well stymied.
Circularity
The cruel circularity of a system, which legally can't hold denial against you but imposes directions that can't be met if you're in denial, is the result of an evolving situation. In the 'old days,' not to admit guilt meant that you just weren't getting out and many prisoners did, and still are, suffering from the effects of this.
Since the ECHR case of Stafford, which determined that the tariff, or minimum term, was the punishment part of the sentence, and that continued detention after tariff expiry could only be for reasons of continued risk, lip service at least has been paid to the principle of release on tariff.
However, if denial contributes to your risk factors, because it can demonstrates problems with 'attitude,' or it is used to imply that there are 'hidden triggers' or areas that can't be fathomed, then like it or not, it's likely to count against you.
Certainly with mandatory lifers, the percentage that do commit a serious offence after release is miniscule. You could argue that a released mandatory lifer is one of the safest people you are likely to meet. However, perhaps because we live in a risk obsessed country, risk is likely to be magnified out of all proportion by those who have control over our lives.
Maintaining your innocence? Well if you truly are innocent then you have no option but to be true and honest to yourself. The state of institutional denial is alive and well and certainly won't make your sentence or your eventual release any easier. However, there is acknowledgement, after a fashion, from bodies such as the Parole Board that a problem does exist. Unfortunately it's down to the Home Office to 'direct' the Board members on what and how they conduct their review hearings.
John Taft
click here to read about John Taft's case (