Quote Originally Posted by IAN 2411 View Post
I believe he never said half, I think it was a shorter sentence.
That's a little different, then - but they already get a one-third discount, as I understand it.

I believe what he meant was, if the defendant pleads guilty he is also saying “I need help,” and could well get the psychological help needed to help him from reoffending. Surely it is to the better interest of society that he gets at least the chance to reform?
A better place for that, surely, would be a parole hearing? Impose the full sentence - then, if the inmate participates fully in some process which might reduce reoffending, then let them out earlier. In effect, suspending part of their sentence, so if they do reoffend they have to serve that time as well.

Something I have thought about in the past is that perhaps the maximum sentence should almost always be imposed - but with a large part usually being suspended. No more 'revolving door': repeat offenders actually end up being put away for a long time, first-time offenders have an extra incentive to be law-abiding in future. Right now, we have criminals who appear regularly in court on 'minor' offences they have committed many times before; the only thing that will stop them reoffending is being in a cell where they don't have the opportunity.

If a person is not guilty of rape, i would like to think that he will fight to his last breath to prove his innocence, even if it takes place years after he is released. Read my first post.
It would be nice to think that - but for too many people, making the consequences of being convicted after a not guilty plea severe enough compared to confessing, they'll take that option. On far less serious brushes with the law (speeding, parking) those who do go ahead and fight the ticket have a shockingly high success rate - but most just pay up rather than go to the extra expense and inconvenience. Supposing your truck driver acquaintance had been facing a much, much worse sentence if convicted after a not guilty plea, and his lawyer had told him he stood no chance of acquittal ... maybe he would still have stuck to his principles, but how many wouldn't?

(Conversely, I'm aware of at least one criminal defence lawyer here who always enters not-guilty pleas for guilty clients, who invariably go down for longer sentences because of it - but the lawyer gets paid more from Legal Aid that way. Hardly ethical or in the interests of justice, but it makes him rich and so far, "the system" doesn't seem interested in stopping these abuses.)