When The Innocent Plead Guilty

The Magistrate's blog has got me thinking.

Is it right that people who plead guilty should get a lighter sentence - perhaps for a lesser offence - than someone who pleads not guilty and fights the prosecution?

I can see there are benefits to the Crown, and the victims and witnesses, in not having a contested trial: less stress and inconvenience, and fewer costs.

What worries me is that innocent people, or people for whom guilt is a moot point (as, for example, in a case of self defence) may plead guilty because they don't think they have a very good chance of acquittal and want to cut their losses.

If justice is to be seen to be done, it needs to be open. Guilty pleas to secure lighter sentences suggest a calculation by the accused, even if there is not necessarily overt negotiation between defence and prosecution.

We get some idea of how many people may be wrongly convicted as a result of their trial, because some later have their convictions quashed and are released on appeal.

But we will never know how many people serve time having pleaded guilty, while believing themselves to be innocent.

For that reason we should give only a very slight discount (if any) to a sentence following a guilty plea, and not accept a guilty plea on a lesser offence in lieu of a trial on a more serious offence.