This essay will begin by critically examining the arguments both for and against the discount. In first considering the arguments in favour of the reduction it shall clearly set out the reasons in support of this and shall include an examination into the commentary from a range of different theorists, some of which are against the reduction and who criticise these arguments in favour. This critic will acknowledge these viewpoints and shall respond with reasoning to suggest that the arguments against the discount cannot stand. Thereafter it shall go on to evaluate the arguments not in favour of the discount and this will include a counter response, first in acknowledging the points raised, before then going on to examine what aspect of these arguments are taken issue with.
After critically examining and evaluating the arguments for and against the discount the essay shall then go on to consider the potential solutions to dealing with a number of concerns the reduction presents and whether they are likely to work. The evaluation of these solutions shall then go on to consider the recommendation and will involve a presentation of discussion around the reforms that are intended to rectify the concerns.
In English law a sentencing discount is awarded to the accused if they plead guilty to the crime they are charged with. The current award of around one third distinguishes those who admit to being in the wrong from those who continually deny their flaws.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The arguments in favour of the sentencing discount
2.1 The Remorse Argument
2.2 The sparing the victim argument
3. The arguments against the sentencing discount
3.1 Sentence discounting encourages the innocent to plead guilty
3.2 Sentence discounts penalise those who exercise the right to take their case to trial
4. The solution
5. Recommendation
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives & Key Themes
This work examines the legal and moral justifications for sentencing discounts awarded to defendants who plead guilty, critically weighing the utilitarian benefits against concerns regarding the potential penalization of innocent individuals and the infringement of the right to a fair trial.
- Analysis of the "Remorse Argument" as a justification for reduced sentencing.
- Evaluation of the "Sparing the Victim" benefit in criminal proceedings.
- Critical investigation into the risk of innocent defendants pleading guilty to secure discounts.
- Assessment of the systemic efficiency gains vs. the perceived penalty for exercising the right to trial.
- Proposed legislative reforms to Section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act.
Excerpt from the Book
The Remorse Argument
The remorse justification is a recognisable argument for a sentence discount within English law. It is right that a plea of guilty should be rewarded because it is evidence that the offender feels some remorse and accepts responsibility for their actions, indeed the offenders who takes their case to trial does not do so. This is a moral distinction between the two offenders, which justifies the difference in sentence. According to Fiona Leverick this remorse justification is no longer a strong enough argument to justify a discount at least amongst academic writers.1 Her view is that even if remorse can justify a lower sentence the accused that pleads guilty is not in itself evidence of remorse.2
Leverick makes a valid point because there will be a number of defendants who plead guilty because they regret their behaviour, and it is also likely that an equally large number of persons will plead guilty to obtain the reduction. The courts sometimes have no way of drawing a distinguishing line between the two. She is therefore right to raise the point that in the case of Du Plooy, Alderdice, Crooks and O’Neil v HMA, the remorse argument was accepted before it later conceded that a guilty plea was not entirely evidence of remorse and that, “the accused may have a number of reasons for pleading guilty which have little, if anything to do with genuine regret or a wish to make amends”.3
It is also acknowledged that Leverick refers to Sanders and Young who described the remorse argument as ‘a singularly unconvincing rational’ in the majority of cases.4
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the essay, focusing on the critical examination of sentencing discounts in English law and the intended methodology for evaluating opposing viewpoints.
2. The arguments in favour of the sentencing discount: Explores the moral justification of remorse and the practical benefit of sparing victims and witnesses from the trauma of giving evidence at trial.
3. The arguments against the sentencing discount: Discusses the dangers of inducing innocent people to plead guilty and the perceived penalty imposed on those who choose to exercise their right to a trial.
4. The solution: Addresses the necessity of maintaining sentencing incentives to ensure system efficiency while acknowledging the risks associated with the current model.
5. Recommendation: Proposes specific legislative amendments to the Criminal Justice Act to create a tiered discount system that encourages early pleas while protecting the rights of the innocent.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes the necessity of retaining sentencing discounts as a tool for systemic efficiency while emphasizing the need for legal safeguards to protect innocent defendants.
Keywords
Sentencing discount, Guilty plea, Criminal Justice Act, Remorse argument, Sparing the victim, Utilitarian efficiency, Right to trial, Innocent defendants, Plea bargaining, Judicial reform, Sentencing policy, Legal mitigation, Court congestion, Qualified guilty plea, Systemic costs.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this academic work?
The work focuses on the practice of offering sentencing discounts to defendants who plead guilty in English law, critically analyzing the debates surrounding this practice.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
The main themes include the moral validity of the "remorse argument," the practical benefits of sparing victims from trial, the risk of innocent people pleading guilty, and the overall efficiency of the criminal justice system.
What is the central research question?
The author seeks to determine whether the sentencing discount is a justifiable mechanism for judicial efficiency or if it unfairly undermines the rights of the accused, particularly the innocent.
Which scientific or legal methodologies are applied?
The paper utilizes a critical analysis of legal literature, examination of judicial precedents (case law), and an evaluation of existing scholarly debate from theorists like Fiona Leverick, Bagaric, and Brebner.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The body covers arguments for and against the discount, including an evaluation of its effect on victims, its influence on innocent defendants, and potential solutions to reform current legislation.
How would you describe the work with key terms?
The work is best characterized by terms such as sentencing policy, utilitarianism in law, plea bargaining, and judicial reform.
Does the author propose a specific legislative change?
Yes, the author proposes amending Section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act to implement a tiered discount system based on the timing of the guilty plea to balance efficiency with fairness.
How does the author address the risk of innocent people pleading guilty?
The author suggests introducing a "qualified guilty plea" where defendants can acknowledge the plea for the sake of the discount while still maintaining arguments consistent with their innocence.
What role does "remorse" play in the author's argument?
The author acknowledges the criticism that a plea is not always proof of genuine remorse but argues that the system must nevertheless maintain incentives to encourage early pleas for the sake of efficiency.
- Arbeit zitieren
- James Michael Corbett (Autor:in), 2012, The mischief of plea bargaining and sentencing rewards. Arguments for and against a reduction in sentence for a guilty plea, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/949839
