Rape and politics

[IAN 2411]

Mad. The sentences are already far too lenient; worse, giving such a big 'discount' risks pressuring innocent people into pleading guilty rather than risk the greater sentence, while excessively rewarding guilty parties.

I believe he never said half, I think it was a shorter sentence.

Most rapists go to prison being found guilty after pleading not guilty. While in prison they keep up the same pretence and when offered help refuse. They come out after X amount of years and repeat their crime.

I believe what he meant was, if the defendant pleads guilty he is also saying “I need help,” and could well get the psychological help needed to help him from reoffending. Surely it is to the better interest of society that he gets at least the chance to reform?

If a person is not guilty of rape, i would like to think that he will fight to his last breath to prove his innocence, even if it takes place years after he is released. Read my first post.

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

I believe he never said half, I think it was a shorter sentence.

That's a little different, then - but they already get a one-third discount, as I understand it.

I believe what he meant was, if the defendant pleads guilty he is also saying “I need help,” and could well get the psychological help needed to help him from reoffending. Surely it is to the better interest of society that he gets at least the chance to reform?

A better place for that, surely, would be a parole hearing? Impose the full sentence - then, if the inmate participates fully in some process which might reduce reoffending, then let them out earlier. In effect, suspending part of their sentence, so if they do reoffend they have to serve that time as well.

Something I have thought about in the past is that perhaps the maximum sentence should almost always be imposed - but with a large part usually being suspended. No more 'revolving door': repeat offenders actually end up being put away for a long time, first-time offenders have an extra incentive to be law-abiding in future. Right now, we have criminals who appear regularly in court on 'minor' offences they have committed many times before; the only thing that will stop them reoffending is being in a cell where they don't have the opportunity.

If a person is not guilty of rape, i would like to think that he will fight to his last breath to prove his innocence, even if it takes place years after he is released. Read my first post.

It would be nice to think that - but for too many people, making the consequences of being convicted after a not guilty plea severe enough compared to confessing, they'll take that option. On far less serious brushes with the law (speeding, parking) those who do go ahead and fight the ticket have a shockingly high success rate - but most just pay up rather than go to the extra expense and inconvenience. Supposing your truck driver acquaintance had been facing a much, much worse sentence if convicted after a not guilty plea, and his lawyer had told him he stood no chance of acquittal ... maybe he would still have stuck to his principles, but how many wouldn't?

(Conversely, I'm aware of at least one criminal defence lawyer here who always enters not-guilty pleas for guilty clients, who invariably go down for longer sentences because of it - but the lawyer gets paid more from Legal Aid that way. Hardly ethical or in the interests of justice, but it makes him rich and so far, "the system" doesn't seem interested in stopping these abuses.)

[IAN 2411]

That's a little different, then - but they already get a one-third discount, as I understand it.

Not in England its not automatic any more, they have to earn it and prove that they have changed for the better.

A better place for that, surely, would be a parole hearing? Impose the full sentence - then, if the inmate participates fully in some process which might reduce reoffending, then let them out earlier. In effect, suspending part of their sentence, so if they do reoffend they have to serve that time as well.

Good point, but we are talking about Money now because Parole boards cost money. These people dont come cheep and it is for that reason they are only used for Major crimes.

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

Not in England its not automatic any more, they have to earn it and prove that they have changed for the better.

Interesting - it isn't set at one-third here, but there is a requirement for the sentencing judge to take the early guilty plea into account. The sentence will always be given as "I would have given you two years in prison for this offence, but in light of the guilty plea I am reducing that by six months." It varies depending on how early in the process the guilty plea was tendered, and hence how much of the court's time was spared by the plea.

Good point, but we are talking about Money now because Parole boards cost money. These people dont come cheep and it is for that reason they are only used for Major crimes.

That sounds rather silly: why can it not be done cheaply and efficiently? I know, having worked on taxpayer-funded projects where we had a member of staff counting rows in a spreadsheet by hand (to generate our monthly website activity report, an admin assistant spend over a day going through the spreadsheet line by line, until I replaced that job with a script doing the same in 31ms) that efficiency and public sector don't always go together, but even having a checklist for early release (signs of remorse, engagement with treatment programme, etc) would help.

Of course, just making the early release conditional on actual good behaviour in jail, rather than reducing the sentence beforehand, should improve behaviour a lot - and I suspect couching it as an optional early release subject to good behaviour, rather than an extension of sentence in the event of bad behaviour, would avoid a lot of human rights quibbles.