X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Thu Jun 25 13:58:13 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0906120025q5ffaecacvb348ec9533a8ef81@mail.gmail.com>
References: <292063.51782.qm@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f826636f0906111553l77c2fa8i4498ee714154408b@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906120025q5ffaecacvb348ec9533a8ef81@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:57:57 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0906250457v2b4cc7ffpc920b35b7d11afc1@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.2
X-Spam_score_int: 2
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:25, Digwuren
	<digwuren@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:53, Dorin
	Cheptea <dorin.cheptea@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Andres, can you please
	check you are unblocked now? > > > Apparently, so. Which goes to show
	that unblocking is not done for lack of > guilt, but as an act of mercy.
	> [...] Content analysis details:   (0.2 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.2 HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD     BODY: HTML font face is not a word
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_30_40,HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD,HTML_MESSAGE 
	autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] blocked
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0621672327327348499=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.2
X-Spam_score_int: 2
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:25, Digwuren
	<digwuren@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:53, Dorin
	Cheptea <dorin.cheptea@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Andres, can you please
	check you are unblocked now? > > > Apparently, so. Which goes to show
	that unblocking is not done for lack of > guilt, but as an act of mercy.
	> [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.2 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.2 HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD     BODY: HTML font face is not a word
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.6 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============0621672327327348499==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502cfaf484556046d2aef7d

--00504502cfaf484556046d2aef7d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:25, Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:53, Dorin Cheptea <dorin.cheptea@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Andres, can you please check you are unblocked now?
>
>
> Apparently, so.  Which goes to show that unblocking is not done for lack of
> guilt, but as an act of mercy.
>

Relevant study from real life: <
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=960125>

*Abstract: *
> The granting of parole in the criminal justice system is often viewed as an
> act of grace: the dispensation of mercy by the government to an individual
> prisoner deemed worthy of conditional release prior to the expiration of his
> sentence. Yet the criteria upon which state parole boards base these acts of
> grace remain something of a mystery. Denials of parole are largely
> unreviewable and courts have held that due process imposes only a minimal
> burden upon parole boards to reveal the rationales for their decisions.
> Nevertheless, surveying state parole release decisions demonstrates that a
> prisoner's willingness to own up to his misdeeds - to acknowledge
> culpability and express remorse for the crime for which he is currently
> incarcerated - is a vital part of the parole decision-making calculus. That
> is, admitting guilt increases the likelihood of a favorable parole outcome
> for an inmate whereas proclaiming innocence serves to diminish the chance
> for release. The main objective of this Article is to consider whether this
> is wise. Should a prisoner's assertions of innocence be held against him in
> the parole process?
>
> Part I of this Article briefly discusses the origins of parole in the
> United States as well as the contemporary features of parole release
> decision-making. Next, Part II explores how the reliance on prisoner
> admissions of guilt as part of the parole release decision intersects and
> potentially interferes with the efforts of innocent inmates to win their
> freedom. Part III then critically examines the theoretical and normative
> implications of the current parole system's emphasis on remorse and
> responsibility. Finally, Part IV recommends several specific reforms
> concerning the treatment of inmate claims of innocence at parole hearings.
> These reforms include limiting the use of parole hearing transcripts at
> subsequent post-conviction proceedings; distinguishing statements of remorse
> from those of responsibility; and re-conceiving the role played by parole
> boards in entertaining questions of guilt and innocence.
>
> *Keywords:* wrongful convictions, innocence, post-conviction, parole
>
Full text is available in PDF form.

-- 
Andres Soolo

--00504502cfaf484556046d2aef7d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:25, Digwuren <span di=
r=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:digwuren@gmail.com">digwuren@gmail.com</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"im">On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:53,=
 Dorin Cheptea <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dorin.cheptea@gmail.=
com" target=3D"_blank">dorin.cheptea@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

Andres, can you please check you are unblocked now?</blockquote><div><br></=
div></div><div>Apparently, so. =C2=A0Which goes to show that unblocking is =
not done for lack of guilt, but as an act of mercy.</div></div></blockquote=
>
<div><br></div><div>Relevant study from real life: &lt;<a href=3D"http://pa=
pers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3D960125">http://papers.ssrn.com/=
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3D960125</a>&gt;</div><div><br></div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin=
-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color=
: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; ">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-family: Trebuchet; font-size=
: 11px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spa=
cing: 2px; "><strong><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetic=
a, Sans-serif;">Abstract:=C2=A0</font></strong>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0<br>
<font size=3D"2" face=3D"Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">The g=
ranting of parole in the criminal justice system is often viewed as an act =
of grace: the dispensation of mercy by the government to an individual pris=
oner deemed worthy of conditional release prior to the expiration of his se=
ntence. Yet the criteria upon which state parole boards base these acts of =
grace remain something of a mystery. Denials of parole are largely unreview=
able and courts have held that due process imposes only a minimal burden up=
on parole boards to reveal the rationales for their decisions. Nevertheless=
, surveying state parole release decisions demonstrates that a prisoner&#39=
;s willingness to own up to his misdeeds - to acknowledge culpability and e=
xpress remorse for the crime for which he is currently incarcerated - is a =
vital part of the parole decision-making calculus. That is, admitting guilt=
 increases the likelihood of a favorable parole outcome for an inmate where=
as proclaiming innocence serves to diminish the chance for release. The mai=
n objective of this Article is to consider whether this is wise. Should a p=
risoner&#39;s assertions of innocence be held against him in the parole pro=
cess?=C2=A0<br>
<br>Part I of this Article briefly discusses the origins of parole in the U=
nited States as well as the contemporary features of parole release decisio=
n-making. Next, Part II explores how the reliance on prisoner admissions of=
 guilt as part of the parole release decision intersects and potentially in=
terferes with the efforts of innocent inmates to win their freedom. Part II=
I then critically examines the theoretical and normative implications of th=
e current parole system&#39;s emphasis on remorse and responsibility. Final=
ly, Part IV recommends several specific reforms concerning the treatment of=
 inmate claims of innocence at parole hearings. These reforms include limit=
ing the use of parole hearing transcripts at subsequent post-conviction pro=
ceedings; distinguishing statements of remorse from those of responsibility=
; and re-conceiving the role played by parole boards in entertaining questi=
ons of guilt and innocence.</font><p>
<font size=3D"2" face=3D"Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;"></fon=
t></p><p><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-seri=
f;"><b>Keywords:</b>=C2=A0wrongful convictions, innocence, post-conviction,=
 parole</font></p>
</span></blockquote></div><div>Full text is available in PDF form.</div><di=
v><br></div>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>

--00504502cfaf484556046d2aef7d--


--===============0621672327327348499==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

--===============0621672327327348499==--


