FL Supreme Court OKs stricter sentences if defendants exercise right against self-incrimination

[emailking]

"No person shall...be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

It says you can't be forced to testify. Not that you can't be rewarded if you do.

A loophole maybe, but it says what it says. A stricter sentence if you don't testify is functionally equivalent to a less strict sentence if you do.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Reposting from the other thread:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1466442103513305093

This seems blatantly unconstitutional.

Well your headline is a little misleading. The defendant in that case chose to testify at their sentencing (thus NOT invoking their 5th Amendment right against testimony) and maintained that the jury got it wrong and they were innocent. The Court held that it was not improper to consider lack of remorse in the defendant’s freely given statements as a factor in sentencing.

Bottom line: when you see a shocking headline about a court case, always read the actual case.

Uhh...yeah, and...?

It doesn't matter if it's at sentencing or before trial,  someone should not be obligated to admit guilt ever.   The justice system isn't always correct when it gives a guilty verdict.   If someone maintains their belief that they are innocent there shouldn't be any punishment for doing so, that absolutely is a 5th amendment right.

No, the 5th Amendment right is invoked when you don’t talk. If the police show up at your house and ask you about a crime, and you say, “I have nothing to say. I want my lawyer,” that’s your Fifth amendment right. But if the police show up to talk to you, and you say, “I’m innocent. I had nothing to do with it,” and you’re lying, that’s a false statement to the police and it absolutely can be held against you.

We agree that if a person is found guilty, and then asks for forgiveness at sentencing and shows legitimate regret for what they’ve done, the judge should be able to take that into consideration and potentially give them a lesser sentence, right?

Why shouldn’t the opposite be true? If the defendant chooses to speak up at their sentencing (as opposed to sitting quiet and letting their attorney make the argument for leniency and/or get to work on the appeal) and they rail against the system and curse at the judge and rant and rave that the jury were a bunch of idiots who got it wrong, they shouldn’t expect that to win them any points when it comes to sentencing.

No, the opposite shouldn't be true.  There cannot be any punishment for not admitting guilt,  that is coercion for self incrimination and is the basis for the 5th amendment.   

There really isn't anyway to weasel out of this...if the justice system uses any method to pressure the person to self incriminate then that is a 5th amendment violation.

Who pressured the defendant in this case to self incriminate? I think you may be missing the fact that defendants don’t need to say anything at their sentencing.

Exactly the point.  The defendant's conduct at sentencing was an unforced error.