It seems to me that how a person pleads is a different issue than that which we were discussing. I didn’t say that giving a lighter sentence because of a guilty plea seemed odd.
The use of remorse in sentencing and parole can sometimes lead to unexpected and arguably cruel results. I heard recently about a case where a prisoner, who still maintains his innocence, is being denied parole because he refuses to show remorse for his crime. Of course, if he showed remorse, it implies that he committed the crime.
I know, everyone maintains that they are innocent. But in this case, IIRC, there is good reason to believe that he was wrongfully convicted. So he has to remain in jail longer than if had actually committed the crime.
I remember an episode of The Practice where one of the lawyers had been hired to represent a guy at his parole hearing. I believe he was in for Murder 1 (aren’t they all in these shows?) and, of course, he was innocent.
The lawyer kept insisting that he admit to doing the crime and being remorseful for it so he could go home to his wife and son. The convict absolutely would not go along with this, as he felt that by lying about it he would be doing a disservice to himself, his wife, and his kid.
The lawyer ended up arguing that he should be given parole because he was innocent. Indeed, there was a happy ending here.
I don’t know, just thought that might be somewhat relevant to this discussion. Seems that the good people who write for The Practice have already considered this.
thinking of a the case of Stephen Dowling.
and englishman of below normal intelligence who was imprisoned for over 20 years for the sex murder of a young woman.
he was not granted parole as he showed no remorse, by continually denying his guilt.
released last year and his conviction overturned.
essentially, that case shows why remorse shouldn’t be a factor in sentencing.
True. But psychiatrists aren’t always as objective and accurate as they should be. They’re not infallible, and can disagree with each other’s opinions. They’re human.
Frankly, I doubt that training or experience in any profession can guarantee total accuracy and objectiveness. For example, I disagree that judges are properly equipped to assess a person’s remorse. There’s nothing inherent to the profession that gives a person insight into another’s mind. A single, specific judge might be a good judge of character, but I think it’s going too far to say that all judges are capable of the same assessment.
As long as your remorse detector is a human being, there is no way to get a completely accurate and objective measure of anyone’s remorse (or lack thereof). And if there’s no means of objectively and accurately determining one’s remorse, then remorse should not be a factor in sentencing.
If a suspect is truly guilty and feels remorseful, he’d plead guilty anyway, what’s the difference?
That misses the point entirely.
If a person is not guilty, he should not be convicted in the first place. That’s a problem with a stage before sentencing, not sentencing itself.