[Shaun]

Right, I'm currently reading a crime novel about a man framed for the "perfect crime" and there was a bit about his lawyer advising him to plead guilty in order to make the sentence less harsh.

This got me thinking; since when did admitting you're guilty mean that the punishment should be any more lenient?

I mean, is there any real difference between a man brutally murdering someone and admitting it, and a man brutally murdering someone and not? Although both sentences in this case would be considerably long, there shouldn't, IMO, be any difference at all. Thoughts?

[Bells]

I think the difference is that those who plead guilty have come to terms with what they have done, rather than continuing to deny it or not accept the fact that they've done it. Recognising the fact that you have committed such a horrible act means there is more hope for remorse/repentance.

Those who plead guilty genuinely do (for the most part) feel guilty - whilst those who can stand indifferent have not realised the magnitude of their actions. There may well be exceptions, but generally murderers should at the very least come to terms with what has happened.

They don't see what they've done as an inhumane act, and are therefore not deserving of a humane punishment.

[Sunny_01]

It also saves those who know they are innocent but have no option other than to plead guilty from recieving a bigger sentence. It doesnt seem right but like Ash said it displays they have come to terms with the fact that they are guilty (in most cases) or know they stand no chance of winning their case.

[Captain.Remy]

Like Ash said, someone would recognise will get more 'respect' (if we can say so) than the one who denies all the time.

I think it shouldn't work this way IMO. Same crime, same punishment because it's too easy to say 'I'm sorry I killed your daughter but since I recognised it, then I won't be in jail for 40 years but for 30' You know what I mean ?

[kerri]

Admitting it its a big thing it means there taking responsibility and also it saves alot of police and prosecution time for a guilty plea i do see where your coming from though but i agree its right how it is xx

[Bells]

Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Like Ash said, someone would recognise will get more 'respect' (if we can say so) than the one who denies all the time.

I think it shouldn't work this way IMO. Same crime, same punishment because it's too easy to say 'I'm sorry I killed your daughter but since I recognised it, then I won't be in jail for 40 years but for 30' You know what I mean ?

Absolutely.

But the law chooses to give these people the benefit of the doubt rather than the other way round, which I'm not so sure is the best idea.

[Tom]

Its better to admit something and be found guilty than not admit it and be found guilty anyway. Noone likes a liar and lying in court is a criminal act in itself, I think thats why you get less if you admit it.

[Sticks]

By pleading guilty it means witnesses and victims do not have to appear in court and relive any trauma, which is the reason for credit being given if any.

The Americans have something called a Alford plea

In the law of the United States, an Alford plea is a plea in criminal court in which the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty. Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime; however, in many states, such as Massachusetts, a plea which "admits sufficient facts" more typically results in the case being continued without a finding and later dismissed.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Shaun
Right, I'm currently reading a crime novel about a man framed for the "perfect crime" and there was a bit about his lawyer advising him to plead guilty in order to make the sentence less harsh.

This got me thinking; since when did admitting you're guilty mean that the punishment should be any more lenient?

I mean, is there any real difference between a man brutally murdering someone and admitting it, and a man brutally murdering someone and not? Although both sentences in this case would be considerably long, there shouldn't, IMO, be any difference at all. Thoughts?

You are quite right. There should not be any difference at all.

Criminals plead guilty to get a lighter sentence not because the have seen the light and regret their actions..

It's just another aspect of silly stupid criminally irresponsible British law that lets vile people off the hook from getting the sentence they deserve...

[Fom]

Its an offer really... an offer that if people admit they did what they done is them they get less time. Its a clever idea in my opinion, it saves the court time and stops wasting time on trying to prove something. It should never be a great deal off... but it takes a lot to say your guilty and willing to go to jail for it!

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Fom
Its an offer really... an offer that if people admit they did what they done is them they get less time. Its a clever idea in my opinion, it saves the court time and stops wasting time on trying to prove something. It should never be a great deal off... but it takes a lot to say your guilty and willing to go to jail for it!

I don't agree. It should not be about saving the court time and money. It should be about justice being done. If a crime has been commited then the full sentence should be implemented. Criminals use our disgustingly soft justice system to get off lightly for serious crimes. That indeed is a crime in itself....

[Sunny_01]

Like I already said many people choose to plead guilty even though they are not. They do this as they are unable to prove their innocence, they feel under immense pressure to pleadu guilty to stop themselves from recieving an even bigger unjust sentence. Now I am not saying this is always the case, I know it is the exception but it still happens.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Sunny_01
Like I already said many people choose to plead guilty even though they are not. They do this as they are unable to prove their innocence, they feel under immense pressure to pleadu guilty to stop themselves from recieving an even bigger unjust sentence. Now I am not saying this is always the case, I know it is the exception but it still happens.

Frankly if anyone pleads guilty when they know they are not. They deserve to be locked up along with their legal representatives...preferably all of them in a padded cell...

[Sticks]

I thought it was up to the prosecution to prove guilt, but I suppose that is naive

It is after all "Guilty even if some loony liberal jury think they are innocent"

[Sunny_01]

Originally posted by bananarama

Frankly if anyone pleads guilty when they know they are not. They deserve to be locked up along with their legal representatives...preferably all of them in a padded cell...

So no consideration given for personal circumstances then, not everyone who pleads guilty needs put in a padded cell, believe me it is probably the hardest decision many have to make and goes against everything they believe to be right, but they do what they have to for themselves and their families.

[Llamajohn]

i'm sure it is already been said before..

but if a criminal can own up to the fact they have done it, and admit it, that shows there is room to put some smiles back in their life.

and what else were we taught? errrm....

yeah, not as great a threat to society if they can admit it, but showing no remorse just goes to show what a twunt they are.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Sunny_01

So no consideration given for personal circumstances then, not everyone who pleads guilty needs put in a padded cell, believe me it is probably the hardest decision many have to make and goes against everything they believe to be right, but they do what they have to for themselves and their families.

To plead guilty to something you have not done is insanity under any personal circumstances......Double thickness padded cell would be more deserving..

[Ruth]

Originally posted by Shaun
Right, I'm currently reading a crime novel about a man framed for the "perfect crime" and there was a bit about his lawyer advising him to plead guilty in order to make the sentence less harsh.

This got me thinking; since when did admitting you're guilty mean that the punishment should be any more lenient?

I mean, is there any real difference between a man brutally murdering someone and admitting it, and a man brutally murdering someone and not? Although both sentences in this case would be considerably long, there shouldn't, IMO, be any difference at all. Thoughts?

Pleading Guilty has always resulted in a lesser sentence in most cases. However, in the case of murder, the sentence would not be reduced. The automatic sentence for anyone guilty of murder is life imprisonment.

Of course, most people sentenced to life don't serve anything even approaching life, but that's a subject for another thread altogether...