So much for due process.
This would run counter to the purpose of the 5th amendment. Why should there be any difference in how you should sentence somebody based on that? No person, even if complicit, would want to be convicted of a crime. The American legal system, in my view, is designed for people to be seen innocent before proven guilty. This would infer the opposite. This is a dubious decision with wide reaching effects.
Here we go again. Did you read the other thread? Did you read the opinion handed down by the Florida Supreme Court? Do you know the facts of how a certain criminal defendant ended up with the strictest possible sentence?
Defendant Davis was arrested, in Florida, on a charge of illegal possession of a weapon. He plead not guilty, which lead to a trial. The jury convicted him. When the trial then proceeded to the sentencing phase, Davis chose to speak to the judge (which he did not have to do), and still insisted that he was innocent, that the jury made an "injust" [
sic] mistake. But the judge replied that he still didn't believe that Davis was innocent, he said the jury had rendered the correct verdict - given the evidence that the jury and the judge himself heard - and he was going to impose the maximum sentence allowed by law. The judge said there were
four reasons for imposing the maximum sentence, one of the four reasons was the defendant did not show remorse for his crime - the defendant failed to take responsibility for his actions (
i.e., committing the crime he was accused of).
Davis's attorney appealed to the state Supreme Court asking that Court to reduce the sentence from the maximum, because by imposing the maximum, the judge was pressuring the defendant into surrendering his right against self-incrimination - a right guaranteed by both the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution. But the state Supreme Court disagreed, by a vote of 5 to 2, and they allowed the maximum sentence to stand. If you read the Court's opinion, you'll see a lot of perfectly sensible explanations why they denied Davis's request. One of those reasons was that the trial court judge MIGHT have imposed the maximum sentence anyway, even if the defendant decided to not say anything before the sentence was imposed. After all, the trial court judge had three other reasons he was going to impose the maximum sentence.
After seeing the debate on the other thread, I've been trying to understand their point of view, as well as the point of view of MJ Stern, who tweeted the message in the OP, and the point of view of Davis's attorney. As near as I can determine, their argument goes like this:
assuming that maximum sentences were not already commonplace, with judges frequently giving the reason that "you show no remorse for your actions/you fail to take responsibility for your actions" as one of, if not the main, reason for the maximum sentence, what if that kind of thing starts becoming commonplace from now on? What is that going to do to most if not all criminal defendants in the Florida courts? Criminal defense attorneys are going to start routinely telling their clients: "
We've lost before the jury, and you and I know they were wrong, but the only way we can deal with that is by appealing. But before we get to that, we have to deal with sentencing, and our most immediate concern now is how to get you the most lenient sentence instead of the harshest sentence. Given the new pattern that has emerged, thanks to the "lovely and wise" state Supreme Court, the best strategy is for you to talk to the judge before he imposes sentence, and you cry your eyes out as you tell the judge how very, very sorry you are for what you did. You and I know that what you say will be false, but that does not matter. We've got to get you the most lenient sentence, and this is the best way to do that." All the people opposed to this ruling by the FL Supreme Court are probably thinking that this is why criminal defendants are being forced to surrender their right against self-incrimination.
But even if lots of accused criminals - all over the entire country - start thinking to themselves that they had better start crying crocodile tears during the sentencing phase of their trials, that still does not mean that they will be unable to appeal the JURIES' VERDICTS. It does not mean that appellate courts will refuse to overturn jury verdicts, because the defendant's "confession" at the sentencing phase does not affect whether there had been evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt during the main part of the trial.
