Reduced sentences for guilty plea

gaf1983

I was reading one of Kevin Myers' recent rants, and it got me thinking.

What is the current position on the relationship between defendants entering guilty pleas and sentencing?

Should the rewards (in terms of a more lenient sentence) for a guilty plea be diminished when the physical evidence links a criminal offender to a crime?

McCrack

I'd be of the view and this is the conventional mindset of the Judiciary that regardless of how strong the evidence might be a guilty plea saves the State a lot of money in many ways and spares the victim having to endure a Trial so yes there should be some incentive to plead guilty even if the odds are overwhemling against the accused.

MagicSean

No matter how strong the evidence is the decision is still in the hands of twelve people who probably dont want to be in the court at all.

bear17

Generally, a discount of up to 25% in the length of the sentence is to be applied in practice.
However, this area is covered by s.29 of the CJA 1999 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/en/act/pub/0010/sec0029.html), but as you can see, it still allows for significant judicial discretion and for no discount to be applied at all even where a guilty plea has been entered.

Victor

Two points:

1. Tom and Dick have a long (non-criminal) history. Tom punches Dick and is charged with assault. Tom readily admits he punched Dick and even Dick admits he deserved it. Tom does not feel remorse or guilt as Dick deserved to be punched. Does Tom have a truly guilty mind? Should he be punished for something he does not feel guilty about?*

2. The legal system can either convict X number of people who plead not guilty or X+Y number of people who plead guilty. Assuming that Mr. Myers, his employers and readers wouldn't like a tax increase and neither do they want murderers running about, which system does he want to go with?


* I am ignoring for the moment that most people who don't feel guilty are sociopaths.

pwd

k_mac wrote: »

No matter how strong the evidence is the decision is still in the hands of twelve people who probably dont want to be in the court at all.

not usually - 95% or more trials are heard by a judge only.

The courts are a lottery.

evercloserunion

1. Tom and Dick have a long (non-criminal) history. Tom punches Dick and is charged with assault. Tom readily admits he punched Dick and even Dick admits he deserved it. Tom does not feel remorse or guilt as Dick deserved to be punched. Does Tom have a truly guilty mind? Should he be punished for something he does not feel guilty about?*

Does that not confuse two different definitions of guilty? Remorse could hardly be considered a prerequisite for a criminal conviction. That's not what guilt means in this context. It simply means that you have the sufficient mes rea for the crime--intention, recklessness, negligence etc, but never remorse.

Victor

However, it does go towards whether a jury will convict. Many juries are slow to convict for "justifiable" actions.

Our man in Havana

Would this be straying into the area of jury nullification?

Jo King

Victor wrote: »

However, it does go towards whether a jury will convict. Many juries are slow to convict for "justifiable" actions.

That scenario would most likely not go to a jury. Remorse only applies to sentencing. It is a factor to be taken into account. The defence there would be consent. If Tom intended to hit Dick and actually did it, he has a guilty mind. It is irrelevant if he felt he was justified. He may not regret the action which is a factor which would aggravate the sentence.
If he pleads guilty, the jury will not be required. If he pleads not guilty and it is established that he intended to hit Tom the jury will be directed that they have no choice but to bring in a guilty verdict.
The only defence Tom might try and run is that there was consent from Dick to being hit. That would mean there was no assault.