“I find that the defendant is not only guilty, but has shown absolutely no remorse for his actions. I therefore sentence him to life in prison.”
Should those that show remorse get shortened terms? Should those that show none get longer ones?
(My opinion follows presently.)
Remorse tends to indicate that the defendant / convict is not a sociopath and therefore less of a danger to society. Of course, remorse cannot be feigned. :sarcasm:
“Of course, remorse cannot be feigned.”
No shit. I’d say if someone shows no remorse for a crime knowing that it could shorten their jailtime, they probably belong in a mental institution rather than a prison. I’d say that the only good thing that could come from this would be that it would be a little more tempting to a person to plead guilty and show remorse rather than innocent and thus longer trials…
Sure it should, if its genuine. But proving someone’s emotions is genuine is near impossible.
Yes, remorse should play a role.
Why do we imprison criminals? Officially, we do it to rehabilitate them and to prevent them from repeating their offense. A prisoner who shows remorse is, reasonably, less likely to repeat his offense. Therefore, a shorter sentence should be sufficient to rehabilitate the offender. A prisoner who shows no remorse is less likely to be readily rehabilitated.
Of course, a mere expression of remorse is not enough. The judge should be convinced that the expressed remorse is sincere. I think judges are capable of making such determinations with at least enough accuracy as is necessary for the purpose.
It depends on the situation. Murder, no. Repeated offender, no.
Showing remorse is not only an expression but doing certain things such as pleading guilty.
I disagree.
Remorse and grief are not always easy to comprehend or detect. And judges are not psychiatrists. If a shrink could make the determination, then I’d be a little more willing to accept the role of remorse. But not the way it is now.
People tend to deal with these things in different ways, but it seems that judges want to see specific criteria being met at certain times.
I remember seeing a court case where a 16 year old was being tried for manslaughter (he was throwing rocks from an overpass – just for fun, I guess – and killed someone). There was no doubt of his guilt, but the trial was to determine his punishment. You could tell that he felt bad about it, but you could also tell that he was trying to be strong for his family (since he had no father, he was considered the man of the family). He was also from a culture that prizes emotional strength in men.
When he was reading his statement before sentencing, he said all of the appropriate words. But because he was reading, and tripping over his words a bit (and obviously scared), he failed to serve up the required tears that the judge thought were the exact dog and pony show needed.
He got life because of his lack of remorse. Had a psychologist interviewed him and given a recommendation, his fate might have been very different. IMO that judge had no business evaluating that kid’s state of mind.
The other problem I have with it is when innocent people get convicted. You can’t expect an innocent person to show remorse, so they get the stiffest terms.
I disagree.
Remorse and grief are not always easy to comprehend or detect. And judges are not psychiatrists. If a shrink could make the determination, then I’d be a little more willing to accept the role of remorse. But not the way it is now.
People tend to deal with these things in different ways, but it seems that judges want to see specific criteria being met at certain times.
I remember seeing a court case where a 16 year old was being tried for manslaughter (he was throwing rocks from an overpass – just for fun, I guess – and killed someone). There was no doubt of his guilt, but the trial was to determine his punishment. You could tell that he felt bad about it, but you could also tell that he was trying to be strong for his family (since he had no father, he was considered the man of the family). He was also from a culture that prizes emotional strength in men.
When he was reading his statement before sentencing, he said all of the appropriate words. But because he was reading, and tripping over his words a bit (and obviously scared), he failed to serve up the required tears that the judge thought were the exact dog and pony show needed.
He got life because of his lack of remorse. Had a psychologist interviewed him and given a recommendation, his fate might have been very different. IMO that judge had no business evaluating that kid’s state of mind.
The other problem I have with it is when innocent people get convicted. You can’t expect an innocent person to show remorse, so they get the stiffest terms.
Good points all, but I’d say “yes” remorse should be a factor:
At least, & I bet 90% of us would agree on this point, a Lack of remorse should definitely extend or harshen Prison sentences to the legal maximum and conditions (remember Heidi Klass’ killer?),
Showing remorse (or at least slinging BS like you are sorry) should not necessarily lessen your sentence — but should be a prerequisite for sentencing leniency and as has been said if circumstances warrant taken as a mitigating factor
I think showing remorse over an extended period time should lead to a shortened prison sentence. Showing remorse immediately afterwards is easier to fake though, so less reliable. Perhaps it should be considered as a factor - Not to reduce the sentence on it’s own, but if the judge is undecided between two sentences, equally in favour of each, perhaps remorse should push it over to the more lenient one.
Of course, given some magic telepathic remorse detector, I would say yes - It should shorten the sentence (as long as it’s not remorse of the “I’m so sorry I did it, but I’d do it again if I had to.” type).
The closest thing we have to that is a psychiatrist. And I am assured through my sources that someone faking remorse is not going to get over on a good shrink. There will be an inconsistancy in there somewhere.
Trouble is, I doubt that judges will take the advice of a a shrink. It seems, from what I’ve seen, that they want to see a specific dog and pony show, and they want to see it at a specific time. And not everyone is going to respond in that particular way. (Like when my grandmother died. I should have cried then and there. I ended up not crying until about 5 years later.)
Take the case I cited. I had little doubt that the defendant felt sorry about what he’d done. I was quite sure that he knew right from wrong. I am positive that he’ll never try such a stupid stunt again. I don’t think that giving a 16 year old a life sentence was warranted in that case. And part of that sentence was due to his not sobbing on the stand.
I’m not sure about this: Ex. Some random person assaults your daughter. You get to him before the police do, and beat him severely. You aren’t likely to go on random beating sprees and be a repeat offender, but neither are you likely to feel unjustified.
Rather than being a factor in sentencing, remorse should properly be a factor in the granting of parole. No judge can know, on the basis of a few weeks at trial, whether a defendant is truly remorseful. The sentence handed down should be appropriate to the crime. Consideration of mitigating factors in the commission of the crime should already have been considered by the Crown Prosecutor in deciding which charges to bring (and possibly by the jury in deciding which counts to convict on).
Once in prison, offenders can take courses in behaviour modification, participate in counselling sessions, participate in religious services, etc. Over time, they can demonstrate remorse by taking these activities seriously and succeeding at them. Then, at parole hearings, their various social workers, psychiatrists, and priests can attest to their remorse, and assist them in being released before they serve their full sentences.
The next question is how much of the sentence handed down should be the minimum time to be served before parole becomes an option.
Yes. Yes. Definitely.
Furthermore (and more important) I think fake (but convincing) remorse should shorten one’s prison sentence.
In Japan, members of the Japanese mafia reportedly bawl like babies during their trial. It is suspected that for many of them, this display may not be entirely sincere.
However. It has the added benefit of taking a lot of the mystique out of criminal wrongdoing. Criminals in Japan are considered screw-ups. The theatrics presented during trials support this perception.
In the US, in contrast, criminals are perceived either as a) scum or b) “outlaws”. The former perception leads to longer prison sentences. The latter allows wrong-doers a certain level of warped and undesirable dignity.
I submit that weighing remorse-displays more heavily would make criminal behavior appear more shameful.
]
burntsand I hate to break this to you, but during the evidence phase of the trial most defendants try to look innocent rather than remorseful, simply because juries tend to convict people who already look like they did it. “He looks contrite. He must be guilty of something.”
Also most trials, especially for lesser offenses, take a whole lot less than a few weeks, so the judge hasn’t really had a lot of time to observe the defendant first hand. Then there are plea bargain cases of misdemeanor offenses, where the judge gets to see the defendant face to face for a total of maybe 12 minutes (2 for initial arraignment and 10 for the sentencing weeks later).
What a great question. I always found it really odd that you have the right to plead innocent in a trial, but then if you are found guilty, the fact that you didn’t admit to the crime is then used against you to further increase your sentence. How can you say “I didn’t do it” AND “I’m sorry I did it” at the same time?
I’m going to agree with burntsand on this one. I think that the remorse and rehabilitation factor is built into the concept of parole. Whether or not you’ve learned to be a good citizen can be more accurately decided by your behavior over the course of a few years than by whether or not you cry on cue.
And blowero, how does that seem odd to you? If you know you’re guilty, and you plead as such, you waste less resources in establishing your guilt. If there was no difference in sentencing between someone who plead guilty and someone who plead innocent, nobody would plead guilty, even if they were caught red-handed. What’s the point? You still have a slim chance of getting off, and at worst you put off going to prison for a little while. Honestly, I think that if remorse is used during sentencing, pleading innocent should be a hint that the person isn’t really all that sorry - at least not sorry enough to be willing to pay the time for their offense.
Jeff
If I was accused/convicted of something I did not do, I’d like to think that I would maintain my innocence, yet still be full of sympathy and compassion toward the victim.
If the judge picks up on that and deems it sincere, does it usually help toward a more lenient sentence? Or is anything short of a confession worthless?
It seems to me that unless a judge has some sort of background in psychiatry, they shouldn’t be making any sort of decision as to a person’s state of mind (although lawyers ask juries to make their verdicts based on the person’s state of mind in many cases). I also agree with burntsand in that this is already built in to the parole system. Can’t character witnesses be called at a parole hearing? Couldn’t you have a psychologist come in and testify that in their opinion you are remorseful and are unlikely to do it again? The parole board can then make a decision based on that.
One of these days, I’ll learn to get all my thoughts together before I hit the submit button…
I would think that showing remorse at the trial would be a seriously unsound plan. If you’re remorseful, that means you did it. Since a jury is supposed to rule based strictly on the facts, you saying you are remorseful is tantamount to a confession, and it means you are going away.