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

[mackthefork]

As far as I can see, whether you are sorry for your crime or not should not be important, unless of course a system of laws isn't designed to punish crime in the first place.

Discuss.

Mack

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
unless of course a system of laws isn't designed to punish crime in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really the question. Is the goal of our penal system to punish or to rehabilitate? The answer to your question follows from your answer to my question.

[BZ_Zorro]

There's two reasons why:

1. The punishment part. People who show no remorse are far more likely to be repeat offenders. They lack the capacity to understand or care about the consequences of their actions.

2. The justice part. People make mistakes, and part of justice is balancing mercy with the need for punishment. People who understand what they have done, and feel true sorrow and regret about it, deserve some measure of mercy. A huge part of the seriousness of a crime is a viscious will, and courts must take this into account.

[Iron Tigran]

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]

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!]

[ 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]

[ 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!]

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]

[ 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!]

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.