[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason for rewarding the better actors among our criminals with lighter sentences. Make sentences tough (to punish and discourage) and fair (as we are a civilized society), and be done with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree with this for the most part, and think that most remorse in crimes that were premeditated is merely for the fact of being caught, I think it is important to distinguish between those who plead guilty (especially for crimes committed during the heat of passion) and those who take it to trial and are convicted. Our civil rights are primarily to protect the innocent from being unjustly convicted, and to insure fair treatment of the guilty. They do not exist to give the guilty a chance to get off without being punished. Thus someone showing remorse and who pleads guilty should be rewarded with a lower sentence when appropriate, while those who take it to trial and only show remorse during the penalty phase after being convicted should get the max to discourage the guilty from taking shots at the legal system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good in principle and works in practice some of the time but it also puts a lot of pressure on innocent people who think they may be wrongly convicted.

And if you're are wrongly convicted and refuse to admit to the crime you never comitted then not only can you get a longer sentence but you serve a higher proportion of it because the parole board wants you to admit your crime and show remorse.

No answers from me except don't get caught up in the legal system if you're innocent - bad place to be.

chez