PeteMorris Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 If someone pleads guilty then they are usually given a lesser sentence..couldn't that be seen as giving someone who "lied" (ie pleaded not guilty) a harsher sentence for contempt of court? I always assumed that pleading guilty mitigated (to a small extent) the crime. I don't mean that it made it less serious. Just that it's seen as recognition (and perhaps regret) of the offence and due account is made of that in sentencing. Hence the lighter sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I always assumed that pleading guilty mitigated (to a small extent) the crime. I don't mean that it made it less serious. Just that it's seen as recognition (and perhaps regret) of the offence and due account is made of that in sentencing. Hence the lighter sentence. The end result is the same for whatever reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 The end result is the same for whatever reason... Well actually no it isn't. if one pleads guilty, there is no need for a defence, and nobody purjurs themselves by lieing. However if one pleads not guilty and is subsequently found guilty. Someone 'has' purjured themselves or comitted contempt or both. One may receive a lighter sentence (and the end result is as you may say the same), but the crime of contempt, and or purjory is never mentioned or actioned upon. (not to my knowledge anyway). And I don't just mean the defendant. I mean others too. Witnesses etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Well actually no it isn't. if one pleads guilty, there is no need for a defence, and nobody purjurs themselves by lieing. However if one pleads not guilty and is subsequently found guilty. Someone 'has' purjured themselves or comitted contempt or both. One may receive a lighter sentence (and the end result is as you may say the same), but the crime of contempt, and or purjory is never mentioned or actioned upon. (not to my knowledge anyway). And I don't just mean the defendant. I mean others too. Witnesses etc Difficult isn't it..on the other hand there may be no proof that a witness/defendant has lied..it's just that the jury haven't believed them..you could be innocent but the evidence (apart from your testamony) points to you..doesn't mean you've lied or perjured yourself..turn it round the other way..are witnesses for the prosecution charged if the defendant is acquitted or found not guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Difficult isn't it..on the other hand there may be no proof that a witness/defendant has lied..it's just that the jury haven't believed them..you could be innocent but the evidence (apart from your testamony) points to you..doesn't mean you've lied or perjured yourself..turn it round the other way..are witnesses for the prosecution charged if the defendant is acquitted or found not guilty? Yes it is difficult. But I would have thought, reversing the scenario as you suggest. I would have thought that the prosecution are unlikely to invent a crime to charge someone with. So that puts the cps / police out of the loop. A charge is only brought about because an offence 'has' been comitted. Witnesses may of course lie for the prosecution, but not with the prosecution sanction. So yes I would expect to see prosecutions brought where witnesses for the prosecution have obviously lied. But you're right, that never happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The perjury itself would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that the person was convicted doesn't prove that (unless the entire case rested on the one statement or something similar). People are charged for giving false evidence though if it can be proven, generally though I think the charge is "trying to pervert the course of justice" rather than perjury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 The perjury itself would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that the person was convicted doesn't prove that (unless the entire case rested on the one statement or something similar). People are charged for giving false evidence though if it can be proven, generally though I think the charge is "trying to pervert the course of justice" rather than perjury. But instances of this are very rare I would think. Oh and almost never for a 'found guilty' defendant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 They are rare, because it's difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, which is what is required. You're probably correct that it's not normally against the defendant, it's more often against someone trying to assist them by lying to the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 They are rare, because it's difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, which is what is required. You're probably correct that it's not normally against the defendant, it's more often against someone trying to assist them by lying to the court. I'm no legal eagle, but logic would tell me with a guilty verdict, and lets say someone had provided a false alibi. Like: "He was with me all night miles away", it's pretty black and white. I can't believe that sort of alibi doesn't come up umpteenth times at court hearings. Anyway, sorry to digress from the main topic folks. I just thought that avenue needed an airing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Any prosecution has to be judged to be in the public interest as well as having a likelihood of succeeding, maybe that's why you don't see so many... (Speculating, I'm not sure, I don't even know how often such a clear lie would come up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.