Why is remorse important, when it comes to sentencing decisions...

Iron Tigran · #1 08-03-2005, 07:59 AM

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.

Girchuck · #2 08-03-2005, 10:03 AM

Usually, remorse is a bit more than skillful acting.
If one shows remorse, one is often making an obligation to pay restitution to the victim, and that is a potentially serious financial obligation.

BluffTHIS! · #3 08-03-2005, 10:32 AM

[ 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.

chezlaw · #4 08-03-2005, 12:19 PM

[ 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

BluffTHIS! · #5 08-03-2005, 08:42 PM

There are checks and balances in both the American and British systems, appeals and pardons. But the best one is the jury system. Sure it's not perfect, and innocent people have most definitely been convicted and even hanged. Hoever, unless evidence can be shown to the contrary, I would assume that upwards of 98% of people who are convicted are in fact guilty, and thus would maintain that there is no reason not to have strong disincentives for the guilty to go to trial just so that 2% or less who might actually be innocent receive lighter sentences.

chezlaw · #6 08-03-2005, 08:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are checks and balances in both the American and British systems, appeals and pardons. But the best one is the jury system. Sure it's not perfect, and innocent people have most definitely been convicted and even hanged. Hoever, unless evidence can be shown to the contrary, I would assume that upwards of 98% of people who are convicted are in fact guilty, and thus would maintain that there is no reason not to have strong disincentives for the guilty to go to trial just so that 2% or less who might actually be innocent receive lighter sentences.

[/ QUOTE ]

2% may be about right, I don't know. How high would the percentage have to be before you think it would be too many?

chez

BluffTHIS! · #7 08-03-2005, 11:05 PM

5% or so, although even as little as 3% might indicate serious flaws in the system. The cure though would be to fix the high error rate not let the guilty off easier. Similarly, although I don't believe the death penalty is appropriate in most cases, when people argue against it because it is applied unfairly because of racial bias, the solution is to apply it equally to similar situations not let more people off more easily.

chomsky53 · #8 08-04-2005, 02:54 AM

i don't know what is more pathetic. the sheer ignorance and lack of any inititive that motivated the question or the inability for even one person so far to address the question properly (this maybe incorrect the first post could be considered a response but that of course would be under the least charitable interpretation of the concepts involved in the question assuming its a good one which it probably wasn't intended to be).