Raphaël Lévesque, at the time a bigwig in the white nationalist group l’Atalante, has been found guilty of breaking and entering in the course of his and his pals’ invasion of the offices of Vice Quebec in 2018. He was tried, found innocent, but the verdict was reversed on appeal. Now he has to be sentenced.
It always amazes me when defendants make a plea in court that having a criminal record would mess up their life. It’s lucky for them I’m not a judge because that would make me crack down harder while taking pleasure in pointing out that they should have thought of that before choosing to do the thing that messed up their life.
Tim S. 11:12 on 2023-01-14 Permalink
I find the “this affects my future” line particularly infuriating when the case involves white collar crime that was committed as part of a job.
Ephraim 12:23 on 2023-01-14 Permalink
See, I would like to lower the jail sentences by half…. but include a caution that sentences are subject to being automatically doubled for any perversion of the course of justice, including remaining silent. In other words, if you admit to the crime, this is the sentence… but not helping the police solve the crime… doubles your sentence. You can remain silent, but it has a cost.
Bert 17:49 on 2023-01-14 Permalink
Ephraim, what if you are innocent? What are saying is that being accused is being guilty. If only the cost would also go the other way.
Ephraim 19:47 on 2023-01-14 Permalink
No Bert, double nothing is still nothing. But if you are guilty, then admitting it means you can only get the maximum sentence, not double it. It’s incentivizing helping the police, rather than hiding the truth from them. If we want criminals to admit to crime and therefore lower the cost of prosecution, we need to incentivize it
Myles 21:16 on 2023-01-14 Permalink
That’s also incentivizing people to admit to crimes they didn’t commit, if they have no faith in the justice system to find them innocent. It happens all the time in the US with plea deals.
Spi 21:25 on 2023-01-14 Permalink
There is no substantive difference between Ephraim’s proposal and the common practice in the US of pleading to a lesser charge in order to avoid the harsher sentence on a more serious crime should you be found guilty.
Both require an admission of guilt and a degree of “cooperation” before a verdict is reached by the courts for fear of a harsher sentence.