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

That is the discretion of the judge. They have a window or scale they have to abide by but yeah, that could mean probation to 5 years depending on how the judge views the case.

 

They don't need to check the box for a jury trial. A jury trial is guaranteed by the Constitution, unless the prosecutor and the defendant sign off on not having a jury.

 

Only to the extent that the statute allows.

 

In a civil case they did, you are making up nonsense WBK.

 

It's a two-edged sword. Withholding evidence or lying about crimes is a "crime", per se... but, a person cannot be compelled to incriminate himself when sworn-in and providing testimony (that 5th-Amendment thing).

 

That’s no different than how religions or cults operate.
I thought that would appeal to the right.

 

It's obvious there is bias going on. A huge number of people around the New York City area, state politicians and judges included, hate Trump ever since he ran for President on the Republican side, and especially after he became President.

The judge didn't exactly specify precisely and explicitly that he was punishing Trump more because Trump's side refused to admit error, but the judge did strongly insinuate it by making that statement.

I don't really think this qualifies as a violation of the 5th amendment, but it is wrong and inappropriate, in my view.

I don't think in any other situation would a judge punish people more in a financial case like this because the defendant did not admit to wrongdoing and their lawyers persist in making the argument that what the defendant did was not a crime. It's definitely not normal and typical behavior for a judge in this type of case.

 

Agreed.

Why?

 

I don't think 'showing remorse' should be within the court's purview. The court is meant is determine guilt based on facts. Giving lighter sentence to anyone who says 'sorry, my bad' just facilitates empty apologies. Trying to determine who is sincere and who isn't is not a factual determination. Consider if Trump had got down on his knees and cried remorsefully, and the judge reduced his fine. Would you not be concerned that Trump had played the judge just to get a reduced fine? Or perhaps even that Trump had leveraged the judge and put on a show as a misdirection?

 

during sentencing, it definitely should be

as someone that shows no remorse is more likely to repeat the crime

the sooner you show remorse the more it means, if you wait until AFTER found guilty, you're probably more upset you were punished

 

If remorse leads to lighter sentencing, then those who intend to repeat are more likely to feign remorse so they can get away with it again.

Its just a lot of subjectivity that has no place in a courtroom.

 

nope, cause they have to admit guilty before being found guilty, if you make the DA prove it, that counts less, as then you could just be remorseful you got found guilty, not for what you have done

 

That oftentimes is true, but that is usually only for very serious crimes like murder or sexual assault (and I mean real sexual assault, not the really borderline cases becoming common these days that arguably were not assault).
Or sometimes in domestic violence cases (which would be a separate long discussion).

But almost never would we expect judges to apply that sort of reasoning in cases that involve allegations of financial misconduct.

In my opinion, it seems the judge was giving a very disproportionately harsh verdict, and was looking for any excuses to try to justify his verdict.

This is, in my view, another example of judges trying to apply "legal logic" in very questionable ways.

 

do you think Trump will repeat these things?

 

Even if you expect the defendant to repeat the crime, it makes no logical sense to give them extra punishment for that in the case of a financial crime like this.

 

The sentence should be the same regardless. Should a person who claims to be innocent get a harsher punishment before they have the chance to appeal their case? Seems that if they did show remorse, it would hurt their case in appeals.

Looking at this another way, giving everyone a harsh punishment, then lighten it if they show remorse seems to favor the people that are good at faking remorse.

Is it worse for Trump to defraud or for joe schmo to defraud? Shouldn't they get the same punishment for the same crime?

 

most certainly does, if a criminal shows they are a repeat offender, the punishment should be harsher

 

That has nothing really to do with what we are discussing. Because you're talking about making an assumption about future crimes based on the defendant not admitting what they did was a crime.

 

Problem here is that Trump actually voluntarily testified at one point during the trial.

 

by the defendant lying about not committing the crime and not showing remorse

 

It really seems you are grasping at straws, when we consider what this case was actually about.

 

oh, so you only mean this case

the way Trump behaved, he deserves no breaks or leniency imo

 

"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'?"

Getting off light for a crime when you profited millions is not a "right"

if one publicly attacks the judge and da, they will probably get a harsher sentence, that is just common sense