Is it a crime to refuse to admit to a crime?

I've noticed a trend within our justice system- refusal to admit guilt leads to more severe punishment.

Case in point, Trump's recent 'fraud' case:
According to their judge: “They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin,” he added. “Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways.”

Trump isn't the first. Just the most recent.

What is the justification for basing a punishment on 'incapable of admitting the error of their ways'?

I'm no lawyer, I dunno if the 5th amendment applies to this case or not ...but it should. If you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself, how can you be punished for not 'admitting the error of your ways'?

Sounds to me like the state punishing people for refusing to agree with the state.

 

I've noticed a few myself.

Cheering an corrupt DA, who's political claim was if elected, she would get Trump.
Cheering a judge, so corrupt, he would order no jury for Trump to plead his case.
Cheering a court, who ignores the very banks claims of not being defrauded, the court alleges was defrauded.
Cheering a ruling of 355 million where no victim was provided to the court.
Cheering a case of fraud, against an ex president running for office, where no bank is claiming to be defrauded.

I for one am happy to see the left cheering these things as victories.
It leaves no doubt in any voters minds the extent they will go in an effort to silence their political opponents.

 

Well yes, those also are concerning aspects of this ruling. But specifically I'm speaking to the right to not incriminate oneself vs the display of remorse. When someone pleads guilty but doesnt seem sorry, then sure, maybe there's a reason to be concerned. But when someone maintains their innocence, is it legitimate to further persecute them for refusing to be remorseful for something they claim they didn't do?

 

Its actually quite common. And its not actually a "trend". Its been that way for as long as I can remember. If a killer is unrepentant they often get harsher sentences. And it applies all across the board for crimes. Its normally done because if someone is not feeling remorse for what they did then they are more likely to commit the same crime, or worse, again if they are let out early.

As to the 5th and your bold/underlined part...You may be right. I don't know if its ever been brought up before on an appeal. But if it has, or perhaps if it ever does, I would imagine that it would still be allowed due to State interest based on the aforementioned reasoning.

 

Is that for people that maintain their innocence though? Its not uncommon that people plead guilty and then dont seem remorseful (perhaps because the plea was just that they felt hopeless...).

 

Afaik yes, even for those that maintain their innocence.

 

I think it's telling that the judge quoted refers to sin, because I think religious (especially Christian) concepts are key here. That is where the idea of needing to confess and repent for your sins are necessary for redemption. As with so many things though, I'd suggest those religious concepts are just reflections of instinctive human ones.

The purpose of criminal justice as a fundamental concept is to reduce incident of crime, by both deterring the guilty or reoffending and others of replicating their offences. A key element of that is a shared recognition and understanding that what they did was wrong and why. Otherwise, why wouldn't people do it again as long as they think they can get away without being caught?

There are also simple practical aspects too. A heartfelt confession and acceptance of guilt makes for a much easier, quicker and cost-effective legal process compared a long trial process (or more with appeals) that ends with the same outcome anyway. While there are legitimate legal and moral questions in the area of confessions, guilty pleas and sentencing agreements, the practical consequences remain.

 

They want Trump to admit that lawful behavior is a crime and then uae his admission to rig the election.

As you notice the Hamas/Progressive alliance, also understand that some strands of Progressivism are becoming increasingly authoritarian, violent and barbaric.

 

lack of remorse for a crime, often gets a worse punishment

 

Trump commits crime.... Trump is not above the law

same with every dem that has been charged with a crime they commited, duh

 

Is that right tho? How is that not compelling an admission of guilt?

 

yes it's right though, as it means one is more likely to do it again

 

It is a crime to not investigate a crime.

 

not to mention, the longer your rap sheet gets, the harsher the punishment should be

 

Trump didn't commit a crime.

 

That's unconstitutional.

 

You can't be can be compelled to incriminate yourself.

Similar to when a cop asked you all these dumb questions like where are you coming from and where are you going.

Bill Clinton perfected the art of saying I don't recall.

Instead of telling a cop I don't answer questions...
Just say.... Look officer I've had a bad day and if it's all just the same to you I would rather not discuss it with anyone.

Being a politician involves telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the experience.

It is a rather similar thing

 

You're a scream. Truly hilarious!

 

Only because you have never read the double jeopardy clause

 

I find when a judge lies in court documents.... he should be held accountable for those lies

https://pl.ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/trump-decision.pdf



When Letitia James literally did ask for no jury in her court filing


https://s3.documentcloud.org/docume...torney-general-trump-trial-no-jury-notice.pdf

 

Trump was denied his right to a jury trial.

 

but once found guilty, lack of remorse can be used against you during sentencing

 

That was the responsibility of Trump's lawyers? They never checked the box for a jury trail. The DA does not select a judge vs jury, the defense does.

 

ah, so do you think we should give people lighter sentences if they show no remorse for their crime?

 

yep, they said trial by judge, judge says guilty, and then they change their mind, lol, doesn't work like that

if it did work like that, every defendant would do that