What Makes Punishment Less Severe?
Jul 22, '07 12:28 PMfor everyone
Some criminals regret his committing crimes and report himself to the authority. Usually it has been taken for granted according to the precedents that their punishment would be alleviated. But I heard some judge saying those who confess their crimes willingly are more likely to get more severe punishment because they revealed their crimes in the hope of their punishment's being less severe. This is indeed very strange. Though every case should be considered depending on many surrounding situations, it's questionable I read the case that the one who report himself is liable to get capital punishment, and the other who were just caught by police are merely indicted in life imprisonment. Besides I remember the judge added the reason that the one who confessed willingly betrayed his organisation, which also weighed his punishment.
Prev: What is 'Truth'?Next: The Gatekeeper
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 22I would think that one who regrets should be treated differently from one who merely turns himself in to avoid more severe punishment. The crux of the matter is, who decides if real regret is present? And how can this be determined? Can it?Interesting thoughts presented in your write-up. Thanks.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 23His judgement suggests any power is not absolute. Probably this judge vaguely understood that any power stands only relatively. He might have wanted to say that the criminal's deed - murder was justifiable in his organisation. What organisation ordered ought to be treated in some way right even if it was against public interest.
As opposed to state power this judge relied on, the power of organisation this criminal included was very small. Yet organisation is organisation. It had hierarchy, he just did what he was told from his supervisor. He murdered one person, but later he betrayed his organisation. It was interesting to see this judge must have judged his disloyalty. What he did with regard to crime was less important to the judge. What mattered more was his betrayal to his organisation. This judge would have judged his punishment be less severe as long as he kept on being loyal to his organisation.

reply
ahfeiko wrote on Jul 22so for this case,the criminal have to check(if possible) what type of judge is going to handle his/her case.can the judge really reads what in the criminal's heart? for this kind of situation - NO. the judge will definately gets the opposite of whats the turned-in criminal have n mind. so...i rather be a fugitive for the rest of my life.theres aint going to be any justice or....simply - human rights.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 23Where did this take place?Where I come from (Denmark), a person who "betrays" a criminal organization voluntarily would probably receive a less severe sentence - we don't have death penalty. Not much less, though; he should have gone to the police before he committed murder, not after.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:59 PMSome year ago in Japan.
They tended to honour only what some organisation decided. Whatever the order it made, its constituents are to obey and this act -absolute obedience is regarded virtue.
This is of course very strange from the viewpoint of law and jurisprudence.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 23Well, it might be considered an excuse of a sort if the organization had some power over him, e.g. it would threaten his life if he didn't obey - or maybe a kind of psychological power.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 2:22 PMThe surrounding situations were similar to those you described. He was about to be killed by the boss for some reason, so he needed to run away from the boss. He chose to present himself to the police authority, that protected him and might have made his punishment less severe. Probably the judge wouldn't evaluate the reason of his confession positively.