Luke Mitchell will not have to admit being a killer to get parole.

[Parky41]

All the cases you mention pre-date the age of the internet.  These days family and friends’ campaigns are much more widely heard thanks to social media, just look at the Lucy Letby case for example.  So yes, it’s reasonable to assume that friends and family of poor wee Mitchell might have been a little more forthcoming given the terrible miscarriage of justice they believe he has been suffering all these years…or perhaps they don’t believe that at all?

Indeed. My post was in relation to risk assessment, support networks, management on the outside around parole conditions. The parole board are not to blame for non supporting family/friends.

[Vertigo Swirl]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13485713/Andrew-Malkinson-wrongly-convicted-rape-sister-guilt-disowning.html

And his relevant because…?  Clearly she thought he was guilty and clearly believing someone is guilty doesn’t necessarily mean that they are.  However, It would seem Mitchells friends and family (mother excepted) don’t actively support his claims of innocence and his brother would have good grounds for believing in his guilt if he knew his brother had lied about his whereabouts that afternoon. 

[faithlilly]

Indeed. My post was in relation to risk assessment, support networks, management on the outside around parole conditions. The parole board are not to blame for non supporting family/friends.

‘ Clearly LM has not gained support from his father and brother with his pleas, will the parole board therefore look to that? Bar one person (with the exclusion of SL), there has been no friends standing by his side either, supporting his claim.’

Do you honestly think that the parole board actually care about that?

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13485713/Andrew-Malkinson-wrongly-convicted-rape-sister-guilt-disowning.html

"She added that she was 'really, really scared' that people would find out she was related to a man who had been jailed for such a barbaric crime."  This passage alone indicates the relevance of the article to the present discussion.

[Chris_Halkides]

Just flailing around for excuses as to why Mitchell was declared unfit for release, refusing to open your mind to the possibility that he actually is still a danger to women.

Again, I will ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth.  My initial reservations about the report centered on two things.  One is why the police were involved, and two was to make the point that forensic psychiatry is subject to cognitive bias, just as other branches of forensics are.  I did not express an opinion on the details of the report itself. 

The citations that I provided point to a problem that was new to me, namely that the practice of predicting future violent behavior is somewhere in between being a highly imperfect discipline and being a pseudoscience.  Here is one more quote:  "he most common form of violence risk assessment is still a judgment made by a clinician. However, this form of assessment lacks transparency, is vulnerable to cognitive biases and relies on the experience and expertise of the clinician. Actuarial assessments based on a score from of a list of identified risk factors have made violence risk assessment more objective, reliable and probably more accurate. More than 200 actuarial violence risk instruments have been described⁴. Despite their advantages over unaided clinical judgment, there are both scientific and ethical problems with the use of these instruments in clinical practice."  I am still looking into it, and I could be swayed in one or the other direction with additional information.

This is the converse of the situation regarding CM and LM passing lie detector tests.  I would suggest that pro-innocence commenters against not use passing a lie detector test in discussions about the case because interpreting such tests is dubious at best.  I would suggest that pro-guilt commenters not put much stock in psychiatric risk assessments; they appear to be similarly shaky.

[Mr Apples]

Found some articles (see below) that state the Parole Board For Scotland denied LM his freedom because they 'could not adequately assess risk'. This decision is uncontestable, but that 'a judicial review remains open' (presumably, this means a judicial review of the board's decision itself?). Speaking of the parole board's decision, SL said: The process by which the parole board normally assess risk - supervised and then unsupervised community access - was taken away from Luke Mitchell when he was returned to secure conditions in June 2023 unlawfully - on the pretext of phone misuse. This has been nothing but a tick box exercise, to convince the public that everyone is following the rules when, in reality, no-one in any form of authority is actually doing so.” Also, the police are understood to have contributed to the report that was based upon two dossiers created by jail officials after his move from a maximum-security prison to Greenock jail. So, it seems LM hadn't been behaving himself whilst an inmate at Greenock prison and it's cost him his community access and possible full release from jail on licence. It would be interesting to read the psychiatric report and those two dossiers by jail officials after he was moved from maximum security to Greenock prison. I wonder what he did at Greenock that was frowned upon. In what way did he 'misuse' a phone? How long was he actually in Greenock Prison for?  SL says there has never been any complaints against LM since his incarceration. Not one -- and never from a woman. Interesting.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/midlothian-murderer-luke-mitchell-first-29009726?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#comments-wrapper

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-set-parole-rejected-32590354?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

[Vertigo Swirl]

Again, I will ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth.  My initial reservations about the report centered on two things.  One is why the police were involved, and two was to make the point that forensic psychiatry is subject to cognitive bias, just as other branches of forensics are.  I did not express an opinion on the details of the report itself. 

The citations that I provided point to a problem that was new to me, namely that the practice of predicting future violent behavior is somewhere in between being a highly imperfect discipline and being a pseudoscience.  Here is one more quote:  "he most common form of violence risk assessment is still a judgment made by a clinician. However, this form of assessment lacks transparency, is vulnerable to cognitive biases and relies on the experience and expertise of the clinician. Actuarial assessments based on a score from of a list of identified risk factors have made violence risk assessment more objective, reliable and probably more accurate. More than 200 actuarial violence risk instruments have been described⁴. Despite their advantages over unaided clinical judgment, there are both scientific and ethical problems with the use of these instruments in clinical practice."  I am still looking into it, and I could be swayed in one or the other direction with additional information.

This is the converse of the situation regarding CM and LM passing lie detector tests.  I would suggest that pro-innocence commenters against not use passing a lie detector test in discussions about the case because interpreting such tests is dubious at best.  I would suggest that pro-guilt commenters not put much stock in psychiatric risk assessments; they appear to be similarly shaky.

No one or nothing can predict the future with 100% accuracy, which is what makes the parole board’s job so unenviable.  Assessing someone fit for release who then goes on to commit more crimes obviously reflects badly on their decision making.  When it’s a case as violent and horrific as this one, even more so.  Psychiatric assessment is one element of that assessment process.  I don’t see what is sinister about police input either, though the latter was only alleged and from an unnamed source by the look of it.   As neither of us knows why the psychiatrist deemed LM to be a continual threat to women, nor how the psychiatric tests were carried out and evaluated I think this discussion is going nowhere but it’s clear to me that you are constantly latching onto and  researching reasons why we should not accept LM’s guilt, and this is just another example.  That is not putting words into your mouth, but just how it appears to me.  If you’re interested in the parole board process there was recently a very good series on the BBC showing individual cases and how they arrive at their decisions, perhaps give it a watch. 

[Chris_Halkides]

https://insidetime.org/newsround/prisoners-who-maintain-innocence-may-be-lower-risk-says-parole-board/

I learned a couple of interesting things from this link.  One, "The guidance comes after the case of Andrew Malkinson who served 17 years in custody after being wrongly convicted of a rape committed by another man.  He was eligible for parole after seven years but was repeatedly refused release by the Parole Board because, according to his barrister, he would “not falsely confess to abhorrent crimes which he did not commit”.  This indicates that the present guidance document is quite recent, and it also suggests that the Andrew Malkinson case was some or all of the impetus for change.  Good to hear.

Two, "One reason why prisoners who maintain innocence have struggled to be granted parole in the past is that they were ineligible to take part in accredited offending behaviour programmes such as the old Sex Offender Treatment Programme, in which participants were required to discuss the offence they were convicted of an express remorse for it. However, newer programmes such as Kaizen and Horizon are often open to people who deny having committed the crime they are serving time for."  This is exactly what I thought was the situation; maintaining one's innocence was an indirect, but nevertheless, real barrier.  This prompts one to ask more about Kaizen and Horizon, which apparently started in 2018.

[Parky41]

I learned a couple of interesting things from this link.  One, "The guidance comes after the case of Andrew Malkinson who served 17 years in custody after being wrongly convicted of a rape committed by another man.  He was eligible for parole after seven years but was repeatedly refused release by the Parole Board because, according to his barrister, he would “not falsely confess to abhorrent crimes which he did not commit”.  This indicates that the present guidance document is quite recent, and it also suggests that the Andrew Malkinson case was some or all of the impetus for change.  Good to hear.

Two, "One reason why prisoners who maintain innocence have struggled to be granted parole in the past is that they were ineligible to take part in accredited offending behaviour programmes such as the old Sex Offender Treatment Programme, in which participants were required to discuss the offence they were convicted of an express remorse for it. However, newer programmes such as Kaizen and Horizon are often open to people who deny having committed the crime they are serving time for."  This is exactly what I thought was the situation; maintaining one's innocence was an indirect, but nevertheless, real barrier.  This prompts one to ask more about Kaizen and Horizon, which apparently started in 2018.

Excellent Chris, you got there eventually. Point made, 1. A prisoner does not have to admit guilt to receive parole 2. Changes had already been made to incorporate training for freedom in line with not having to address guilt. Which has been said several times in this thread title. 3. AM's case is not and never has been anything like that of LM's. Not even the 'being held in prison for many more years because one refused to admit guilt' notion. LM is barely past his 1st hearing.

The guidance is in respect of how ones parole lawyer/prisoner should/could address the parole board, which is not on the basis of their client being innocent, but on the basis of risk, because that is the role of the board, to assess risk based upon the verdict of the court, offending behaviours and so forth. Multiple factors used, no doubt LM's age at the time of offence will also play a part in any considerations made, like any young offender.

Status Quo - He was on a training programme, he was working towards life on the outside. He broke the rules, has offending behaviours, shipped back to closed conditions. Did this happen with AM? Therefore again, and at this very moment in time, not a comparison at all.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Maintaining-Innocence-info-sheet-1.pdf
parky41,

The link itself was helpful, but your comments might mislead the unwary.  One, there can now be no doubt that there was a problem prior to 2018.  Two, the newest guidance was at least partially in response to the  exoneration of Andrew Malkinson (circa 2023); I am the one who brought his case into the present thread, and it was dubbed classic MSM propaganda (the propaganda comment has not aged well).  BTW your comments regarding his case miss the point.

The issue I raised (and provided citations for) in the nature of predicting future violent acts remains.  The phrase "nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on parole licence..." is soothing to the ear, but the reality of the situation is another matter (see next paragraph).  Whether the new programs are genuinely better or merely old wine in new bottles is an open question: I found (https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Maintaining-Innocence-info-sheet-1.pdf) this observation:  "Although Ministry of Justice and HMPPS policies have now started using the term ‘maintaining innocence’ more often, some policies still use the term ‘in denial’ instead."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17488958221098887

"While it is stated in prison rules that maintenance of innocence should not prevent progression and parole,11 accounts from prisoners strongly suggest that the reality is very different...It is also apparent that there exists a substantial gap between official policy and the perceived reality facing prisoners.  Official rhetoric is keen to emphasise that denial of guilt alone should not affect prison treatment, progression or parole. While such documents are understood to allay concerns that prisoners maintaining innocence cannot progress, they simultaneously make it very hard to do so – officially, claims of innocence are not a bar to release, the emphasis is instead on risk.  However, it is very difficult to demonstrate a reduction in perceived risk without attendance at related offending behaviour courses, which often require an admission of guilt."

[Vertigo Swirl]

What’s the solution Chris?
Clearly not everyone who says they are innocent should be believed (perhaps you think they should?)
That means some refusing offending behaviour courses will in fact be guilty, maybe even most of them, who really knows?
How do you assess the risk of repeat offending by someone who says they are innocent of the crime they were convicted of but but who has committed offences whilst in prison and displayed behaviour which suggests a lack of sensitivity to the victim’s family? 
Should psych reports not be used?  If not, what measure should be used instead to ascertain risk? 

[Kenmair]

Out of interest, how many UK (or Scottish) convicted murderers admit guilt at any point? Not many I'd imagine.

[faithlilly]

An interesting piece of research studying the consequences of claiming innocence within the prison system.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17488958221098887

[Vertigo Swirl]

An interesting piece of research studying the consequences of claiming innocence within the prison system.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17488958221098887

As far as I can see she doesn’t suggest any answers for dealing with the conundrum that faces those who have to make exceptionally difficult decisions about whether or not an inmate who was convicted of a cruel and sadistic murder still poses a risk to the public.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a749113ed915d0e8e3993ae/Parole_Board_-_Information_for_Victims.pdf
The Parole Board has a booklet called "Information for Victims."  It states in part, "If an offender continues to maintain their innocence, the Parole Board must assess whether their risk is still high enough that the public can only be protected by their continued imprisonment against the fact that they are unlikely to show any remorse, while they continue to deny their guilt...However, denial of guilt is not a lawful reason by itself for the Board to refuse to release an offender, or assess them as suitable for open conditions."  There is, shall we say, tension between the two ideas in the quoted passage.  I will come back to this thread when I have more time.