Why do you get a lighter sentence for "pleading guilty"

dylonator

Was just thinking there about the system in this country where if you plead guilty to doing a crime during trial, you get a lighter sentence. I must say I disagree with this, it makes no sense really, surely if they have sufficient evidence to put somebody away and the defendant realizes this then he knows he may as well plead guilty to get a few years off.

It makes no sense why someone's plead in a trial should have any influence on a sentence, if someone pleads innocent to a murder, it does not really count for anything as far as evidence is concerned.

The only reason a jury would need to take a defendant's plea into account is if he pleads guilty and there was not enough evidence against him already, but if there was not enough evidence against a defendant in the first place and they needed his plea to influence their decision then surely he would plead innocent




The bottom line is that a defendant in general would only ever plead guilty when he knows he is going down anyway so realizes he might as well take a few years off his sentence by doing so.

Makes no sense why people who do this should be let off more lightly.

Jesus Shaves

It costs the taxpayer less money

MagicSean

Having the evidence and convincing a judge or jury are seperate things.

dylonator

MagicSean wrote: »

Having the evidence and convincing a judge or jury are seperate things.

what's your point? i still do not understand any reason at all why someone would plead guilty unless they knew they were going to lose the case anyway, an example of this is your man who got 12 years rather then more after killing that other guy with a hurl


he would have got a harsher sentence had he pleaded innocent, but he realized there was no point as there was such compelling evidence against him

McCrack

Defendants get a discount in sentence for a guilty plea for many reasons. It saves the state money in running a trial and all the added pressures of having state witnesses tied up for days in court (that's a big one) spares victims ordeal of giving evidence and being subject to cross-examination. If there was no incentive to plead guilty then nobody would plead guilty and the system would crash. The vast majority of summary and indictable offences are disposed of on a guilty plea anyway.

There are other reasons but the above are the main I think.

Murder is a bad example to use because the sentence is mandatory life hence the disproportionate number of not guilty pleas to such charges...in other words defendents have nothing to lose and everything to gain by pleading not guilty and requiring the state to prove their case.

BornToKill

If you remove any incentive to plead guilty at an early stage of proceedings then every accused person is going to let the trial run and leave it go all the way. Even if they are guilty they will take the chance that something will crop up or the prosecution will fail to convince the jury on some element.

Victor

Other than cost, there are other purposes. An admission of guilt is good for the victim(s) / family and society. Also, solving that crime may lead to the solving of other crimes.

Statistician

There surely is a very bad side to it as well.

If someone is innocent but for some reason believe that they will not be able to convince a jury of this, they may plead guilty to get a lighter sentence.

They may be coerced into pleading guilty even though they are innocent.

BornToKill

Statistician wrote: »

There surely is a very bad side to it as well.

If someone is innocent but for some reason believe that they will not be able to convince a jury of this, they may plead guilty to get a lighter sentence.

They may be coerced into pleading guilty even though they are innocent.

It isn't necessary for the accused to convince a jury of their innocence; that is already presumed. The burden rests on the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Milk & Honey

dylonator wrote: »

The only reason a jury would need to take a defendant's plea into account is if he pleads guilty and there was not enough evidence against him already, but if there was not enough evidence against a defendant in the first place and they needed his plea to influence their decision then surely he would plead innocent


The bottom line is that a defendant in general would only ever plead guilty when he knows he is going down anyway so realizes he might as well take a few years off his sentence by doing so.

Makes no sense why people who do this should be let off more lightly.

A jury doesn't take a defendants plea into account. Once a defendant pleads guilty the matter proceeds to sentence and there is no need for a jury. About 90% of all cases are dealt with on guilty pleas. If all defendants pleaded not guilty the resources consumed in running trials would need to be increased enormously. If there were no extra sittings of the courts it would take decades to bring cases to trial. If there were more sittings there would be guards sitting at trials for weeks on end instead of investigating and preventing crime.

Procrastastudy

I really thought this was a no brainer. Fair play OP looks like you have half decent convo going here. I disagree entirely and think you are wrong but around 1/4 agree with you. My only concern would be out of that number how many read the daily mail?

Another compelling aspect is that it means the victim / victims family does not have to sit though a lengthy trial. Take a rape for example - the victim generally feels violated again by having to sit though the trial. I've sat in a murder case here and there and it's generally pretty obvious who the victim's family is.

Sorry just saw McCrack alread said this and Victor. Doh.

johnnyskeleton

Never plead guilty. That should be written in letters a foot high in every room in chambers.

jawn

dylonator wrote: »

Was just thinking there about the system in this country where if you plead guilty to doing a crime during trial you get a lighter sentence

One makes their plea at the arraignment hearing.

dylonator wrote: »

surely if they have sufficient evidence to put somebody away and the defendant realizes this then he knows he may as well plead guilty to get a few years off.

Trials are not black and white. If they were, apart from the constitutional element, there would be no need for a trial. It'd be "spot the difference" between a precedent case and the set of facts in question. There are a thousand things that can lead to an acquittal even with sufficient evidence.

dylonator wrote: »

The only reason a jury would need to take a defendant's plea into account is if he pleads guilty and there was not enough evidence against him already, but if there was not enough evidence against a defendant in the first place and they needed his plea to influence their decision then surely he would plead innocent

The jury couldn't use a guilty plea to ameliorate the amount of evidence again the defendant. If there is a guilty plea, then there is no trial, thus no jury.

dylonator wrote: »

The bottom line is that a defendant in general would only ever plead guilty when he knows he is going down anyway so realizes he might as well take a few years off his sentence by doing so.

That isn't strictly true. Take for example a upstanding member of society who has a lapse in judgment and commits a crime. He may feel genuinely remorseful and his usual moral way of thinking leads him to plead guilty to the crime he is guilty of committing.

battle_hardend

Statistician wrote: »

There surely is a very bad side to it as well.

If someone is innocent but for some reason believe that they will not be able to convince a jury of this, they may plead guilty to get a lighter sentence.

They may be coerced into pleading guilty even though they are innocent.

i was once faced with this choice , my legal team advised me to plead guilty to an offense even though i was innocent , i wouldnt advise it unless things are hopeless , even you loose a case , you can appeal , cant do that if you plead before hand

battle_hardend

BornToKill wrote: »

It isn't necessary for the accused to convince a jury of their innocence; that is already presumed. The burden rests on the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

what if your in the district court and thier is no jury

Tom Young

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Never plead guilty. That should be written in letters a foot high in every room in chambers.

Chambers? - Did you click 'Judge' in the poll earlier? Or do you mean the jax?

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote: »

Chambers? - Did you click 'Judge' in the poll earlier? Or do you mean the jax?

It's a quote from the late Sir John Mortimer QC's treatise on the practice of criminal law, claret and small cigars.

Finnbar01

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Never plead guilty. That should be written in letters a foot high in every room in chambers.

What if you were caught drunk driving and the tests prove this?

Why would you want state not guilty when all the evidence is against you?

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Never plead guilty. That should be written in letters a foot high in every room in chambers.

Spoken by a man paid hourly per client?

tuxy

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What if you were caught drunk driving and the tests prove this?

Why would you want state not guilty when all the evidence is against you?

In this case the arresting guard could have made some small mistake with procedure or may make a mistake while cross examined in court.

Tom Young

MagicSean wrote: »

Spoken by a man paid hourly per client?

Surely that doesn't matter. The legal profession are all over billing! it's written on the walls!

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Never plead guilty. That should be written in letters a foot high in every room in chambers.

Worried you don't have enough work?

Tom Young wrote: »

Surely that doesn't matter. The legal profession are all over billing! it's written on the walls!

The thinking man's graffiti?

johnnyskeleton

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What if you were caught drunk driving and the tests prove this?

Why would you want state not guilty when all the evidence is against you?

Maybe the tests are wrong? Drink driving is a good example of the type of case where there is limited benefit in pleading guilty because of mandatory disqualification periods. Murder is a similar type of charge.

MagicSean wrote: »

Spoken by a man paid hourly per client?

It was spoken by a man paid the occasional small legal aid cheque which was soon spent on vim and mansionette polish by She Who Must Be Obeyed. My understanding is that in both the UK and Ireland fees are paid on a per case basis, meaning that a guilty plea represents more money for less work than a not guilty plea.

Victor wrote: »

Worried you don't have enough work?

Seriously? Whatever about the Fremen not knowing having read the constitution and still being allowed to post here, if you've never watched an episode of Rumpole of the Bailey then you really have no business posting in the legal discussion forum. The only law books worth having are a battered old copy of blackstone, ackerman on bloodstains and the oxford book of english verse.

Farcear

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

[...] Drink driving is a good example of the type of case where there is limited benefit in pleading guilty because of mandatory disqualification periods. Murder is a similar type of charge.

An argument for a reduction / elimination of minimum penalties then?


Does a guilty plea affect subsequent things such as parole, probation, etc.?

johnnyskeleton

Farcear wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

[...] Drink driving is a good example of the type of case where there is limited benefit in pleading guilty because of mandatory disqualification periods. Murder is a similar type of charge.

An argument for a reduction / elimination of minimum penalties then?


Does a guilty plea affect subsequent things such as parole, probation, etc.?

Yes and yes. Politicians intoduce a mandatory sentence because they think too many people plead guilty and get away with it then they get rid of minimum sentences because too many people fight and get away with it. They're never happy

dylonator

Well if it is true that innocent people feel the need to plead guilty as this would benefit them then there is an obvious flaw in the system, this can lead to people being forced to plead guilty or at least told they would be stupid not to

dylonator

my point is, regardless of cost, the system is meant to punish people for their crimes, and if a crime warrants a 5 year sentence then surely this is what someone should get regardless of their plea

ResearchWill

dylonator wrote: »

my point is, regardless of cost, the system is meant to punish people for their crimes, and if a crime warrants a 5 year sentence then surely this is what someone should get regardless of their plea

While the same crime committed by 2 different people warrants a certain sentence the court must weigh up all the facts. If one person pleads guilty he is showing remorse and therefore knowledge that he has done wrong, on the other hand the person fights the matter has shown no remorse.

dylonator

ResearchWill wrote: »

While the same crime committed by 2 different people warrants a certain sentence the court must weigh up all the facts. If one person pleads guilty he is showing remorse and therefore knowledge that he has done wrong, on the other hand the person fights the matter has shown no remorse.

Sure, he would be showing genuine remorse if he pleaded guilty and had nothing to gain from doing so, but in reality people do not plead guilty because they are remorseful, they do so because it will land them with a lighter sentence

ResearchWill

dylonator wrote: »

Sure, he would be showing genuine remorse if he pleaded guilty and had nothing to gain from doing so, but in reality people do not plead guilty because they are remorseful, they do so because it will land them with a lighter sentence

Can I ask have you ever sat in on a sentencing day in either the circuit court or district court. It's an experience, and one any person should witness. While it is true that some people plead guilty for themselves, you do see the people who are genuinely remorseful. It's funny I have seen a few sentences and you can often have the same crime and the same facts in mitigation but different results because in one the judge believed what he was told and in the other just believed it was a guy trying to pull the wool over his eyes.

Victor

dylonator wrote: »

my point is, regardless of cost, the system is meant to punish people for their crimes, and if a crime warrants a 5 year sentence then surely this is what someone should get regardless of their plea

There are finite resources for law enforcement. Those resources can be used to put one criminal in prison for 10 years or five criminals in prison for 5 years each. Which is better?

Procrastastudy

Victor wrote: »

There are finite resources for law enforcement. Those resources can be used to put one criminal in prison for 10 years or five criminals in prison for 5 years each. Which is better?

Victor -while your legal prowess never ceases to amaze me I think your maths might need some work. Either that or you are in charge of numbers at Mountjoy.

ResearchWill

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Victor -while your legal prowess never ceases to amaze me I think your maths might need some work. Either that or you are in charge of numbers at Mountjoy.

I think his point is say we have 1million euro we can spend that fighting every case and end up for each million only affording 1 long trial and 1 ten year sentence, or spend the million on 5 pleas and 5 sentences of 5 years.

Procrastastudy

I see your (and his) point! I'm not sure the Government really have thinking that joined up though.

johnnyskeleton

ResearchWill wrote: »

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Victor -while your legal prowess never ceases to amaze me I think your maths might need some work. Either that or you are in charge of numbers at Mountjoy.

I think his point is say we have 1million euro we can spend that fighting every case and end up for each million only affording 1 long trial and 1 ten year sentence, or spend the million on 5 pleas and 5 sentences of 5 years.

well if that's the case then the more people that get off the more the Irish exchquer benefits

ResearchWill

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

well if that's the case then the more people that get off the more the Irish exchquer benefits

Bit of a simple way of looking at economics. The criminal justice system also acts to dissuade people from getting into crime. In many cases of theft, the cost to the state to detect, prosecute and the jail the offender exceeds by a multitude the amount stolen, so on your simple view of economics why detect petty theft, well to hopefully stop others who might think to do it.

If criminals believed that their chance of getting off was very high so the state would save money, the criminals cost benefit analysis would say do more crime. More crime would then cost society more, business would shut down because they are being robbed all the time, and on and on.

Statistician

BornToKill wrote: »

It isn't necessary for the accused to convince a jury of their innocence; that is already presumed. The burden rests on the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's the theory, isn't it? That's what people like to believe.

In reality, people are prejudiced. They pre-judge. Depending on the crime and other factors many people will have already made their mind up if a person is guilty or not.

Yes, I'm prejudiced too.

comeback_kid

Statistician wrote: »

That's the theory, isn't it? That's what people like to believe.

In reality, people are prejudiced. They pre-judge. Depending on the crime and other factors many people will have already made their mind up if a person is guilty or not.

Yes, I'm prejudiced too.

i would also include the judge among those who are prejudiced and predisposed to viewing certain people as more likely to be guilty than others , this is especially the case at district court level where objectivity is often severley lacking in bench sitters