Confession isn’t the only factor

LaGuer is hardly an ideal symbol for this problem. In 1984, he was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after 15 years for the brutal rape of a neighbor. He has now served some 27 years in prison, insisting on his innocence all the while, and for a time his continued imprisonment was a cause célèbre. Interest in the case faded, though, after a 2002 DNA test linked him to the crime.

LaGuer says the evidence must have been tampered with and that he won’t sully his family name by admitting to a crime he didn’t commit. It’s as least as likely that, having spent decades portraying himself as wrongly convicted, he fears losing face with supporters if his story changed. In any case, his refusal to concede guilt and express remorse has become a major impediment in his bid for release. He was just denied parole for the fourth time, and won’t be eligible to reapply for five years.

But suppose for a moment that someone really had been wrongly convicted. In such a case, making an admission of guilt the deciding factor in parole would create an agonizing and unfair dilemma.

State law contemplates parole in cases where there is “a reasonable probability’’ that a prisoner won’t violate the law again and where parole “is not incompatible with the welfare of society.’’ Matters such as conduct in prison, efforts at self-improvement, and evidence of growth and maturity should matter as much as admission and contrition. After a certain point, a failure to acknowledge guilt shouldn’t be an insuperable hurdle to parole.