Question as above.
In Ireland, we have a phenomenon that whenever a criminal is poor, and are being sentenced, their barrister was wax lyrical about their disadvantaged background and their hard upbringing.
If they are well-off, and the crime is not too severe, they refer to them coming ‘from a good family’.
In ways it makes sense - someone from a rich background is far less likely to reoffend. Similarly, someone from a poorer background may not have had as many chances in life.
It strikes me as unrealistic to pretend that someones background has no effect on their likliness to reoffend, their personal culpability etc but yet it’s very unfair to take it into account.
Lawyers here do the same thing. It rarely makes any difference at all. Any extenuating circumstances are usually brought up during the trial “I stole the breaqd to feed my starving children” “he’s rich so he was actually joyriding, he did not intend to steal the car”
If we’re essentially punishing poorer people more harshly for their socioeconomic status, should increased social assistance be included in the sentence?
Understand what is happening. The lawyers are trying to do the best they can for their clients. Their job does not just extend to arguing guilt or not–it also extends to sentence, in the case of “guilty.”
So, if a client of mine comes from a poor background, and the sentence would typically be a fine, I’m going to argue to get that fine as low as possible, on the basis that my client cannot afford anything excessive. If the sentence would be jail time, I’ll argue that it should be as short as possible, as my client needs to be out of jail and at work in order to provide for his family. If the client comes from a better socio-economic background, I’ll argue that this offense was a one-shot; it won’t happen again, and while some sort of sentence is appropriate, giving him the maximum permissible is not. In all cases, if I need to cite caselaw, I can; in order to get my client the least possible sentence according to law.
“Equality” has nothing to do with it, except insofar as the sentence is equal to that doled out for similar offenses. But ultimately, as a defense lawyer, my job includes arguing the sentence as low as possible. I don’t stop working for my client just because “guilty” is the verdict.
Actually that’s what the federal sentencing guidelines were supposed to be about. You committed xx crime(s), you do zz time. However, the practicality ends up some federal judges used more discretion than others and deviated from the guidelines. The result end up poor blacks got more time in the slammer than whites convicted of the same crimes. It’s my understanding that the Republicans want to make the guidelines mandatory, meaning no judges discretion.
But should it affect even the type of sentence imposed?
A middle class person suffers far more than a working (-less) class person from the stigma of a jail sentence, and a fine will affect a working class person far more than a middle class person
I do, but at the same time if the crime is severe enough that you’re worried that someone will skip the country, the bail is most likely already set too high for someone poor to pay.