Gave her a measly 7 years and then knocked 3 years off for bullshit - reduction for a guilty plea and for her "personal" circumstances. And eligble for parole at any time.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't care about her personal circumstances, and the sentence should definitely be longer in this case, but I think that there should always be a reduction for a guilty plea. Not only does it show remorse because you're admitting you did the wrong thing, but it saves the government from a lengthy and costly court case.

[–] thejoker954@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Pleading guilty doesn't mean you feel remorse, it just means you know you're screwed and that fighting won't help/will make worse.

But it does help prevent costly courtcases which is why they offer deals/lighter sentences in exchange for guilty pleas.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago

Definitely true, but if you plead not guilty then you definitely don't have any remorse. That's why judges should always have discretion with sentencing rather than mandatory minimums, so they can determine if there's remorse. They should definitely be listening to victim and family impact statements as well though.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 4 points 5 months ago

It is not likely to be the judges' fault. The terms will be laid out in law and precedent, including the discount. It will also be partly about what charges the prosecution brought them up on. The judge can't (and shouldn't be able to) just say it doesn't feel long enough so they added 10 years. While it seems counterintuitive, judges should not have large amounts of individual judgement, and things like this should always be set out in a framework that all judges follow. Otherwise you get significant differences between judges (a book that talks about this is "Noise: A flaw in human judgement").

If we think that this should have a longer jail term, then that should be set out in law, not something an individual judge decides.