There have been cases where innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for claiming guilt, and remaining imprisoned and telling the truth.
Individuals have died in prison rather than admit to crimes that they did not commit, including in the face of a plausible chance at release.
Those prisoners are unable to achieve parole unless they undertake offence-behaviour courses that require the admission of guilt as a prerequisite.
Michael Shirley, an 18-year-old Royal Navy sailor, was wrongly convicted of the crime and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Stephen Downing was a 17-year-old council worker convicted and imprisoned in 1974 for the murder of a 32-year-old legal secretary, Wendy Sewell.
The case is thought to be the longest miscarriage of justice in British legal history,[9][10][11] and it attracted worldwide media attention.
[18] Once a verdict has been made, it is rare for a court to reconsider evidence of innocence that could have been presented at the time of the original trial.
Decisions by the State Board of Pardons and Paroles regarding its treatment of prisoners who may be actually innocent have been criticized by the international community.
[19] Herbert Murray, who was convicted of murder in 1979, said, "When the judge asked me did I have anything to say, I couldn't say, because tears were coming down and I couldn’t communicate.
She stated that investigators botched the gathering of evidence and withheld information from her, causing her to believe that Cole was the perpetrator.
When he refused the plea deal, insisting on his innocence, the judge noted "If you go to trial and lose, you could get up to fifteen [years]."
[24] Gabe Tan reported a British conference in 2011, "the dilemma of maintaining innocence", concluded "Denial is not a valid measure of risk.
In fact, research has shown that prisoners who openly admit to their crimes have the highest risk of re-offending.
"[25] In 2011, Michael Naughton suggested the focus on new evidence by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, rather than an examination of serious problems with evidence at original trials, meant in many cases “that the dangerous criminals who committed these crimes remain at liberty with the potential to commit further serious crimes.”[26] Robert A. Forde cited two studies at the conference.
He also told the conference research by Hanson et al. in 2002, the denial by the prisoner of their offences had no bearing on their likelihood of re-offending.