Seems to me those guilty crims get this all the time - at least in Britain. The Judge then follows up by explaining this is one reason the sentence is this long, ie longer than if the defendant had shown remorse. THIS MAKES NO SENSE. If the defendant is pleading not guilty, he can’t show remorse without telling the court and jury he is guilty.
OK, in many instances the Judge is talking about pre-trial behaviour; but if the defendant plans to plead not guilty it would be incriminating just the same.
I’m not sure about Britain, but in the United States, the guilt-determination phase and the sentencing phase are conducted separately, and the defendant, once convicted, is given the opportunity to make a statement at the sentencing.
I’ve actually seen a few sentences that were shorter than expected or were suspended because the convicted defendant had gone out of his way to do community service, make restitution, etc., between the verdict and the sentencing.
(When a defendant pleads not guilty, keep in mind that he isn’t necessarily saying he’s innocent, but rather forcing the state or the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the act in question.)
I know, this killls me when I hear about someone denied parole time after time because they fail to show remorse or admit their responsibility in the crime, and then it turns out they were innocent. I wonder if I were convicted of a crime I didn’t commit how long I would be able to hold out, or how easy it would be to confess to everything and beg forgiveness.
Before Truth In Sentencing laws, there was a problem with this in the prison system. In order for a sex offender to get parole, he had to complete sex offender treatment programs. You couldn’t complete the program without admitting your guilt. A lot of inmates didn’t want to do that, obviously. (Aside from claims of actual innocence, many of them didn’t want to admit to guilt out of fear it would screw up their chances for successful appeal.)
Now parole has been virtually eliminated in favor of flat sentencing.
Yes, but if he’s found guilty, then the assumption is that he is and always has been guilty. If he’s guilty but pleaded not guilty and shown no remorse, then he’s not only done it, but he’s wasted everyone’s time by indicating otherwise.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that, personally, but that’s the usual reasoning, as I understand it.