To not understand why people won't admit guilt?

[tinyme77]

Why do people, when faced with conclusive evidence of their guilt, still deny it? E.g. the guys that cut down the sycamore tree filmed themselves doing it but are still claiming that they aren't guilty. Do they think that they will get away with it?

Majority of people who go to prison for large crimes have confessed at some stage or plead guilty. I don't know the statistics for non violent crime but I'd imagine it's probably not too different with the exception of plea deals being offered. It's surprising how often people who are subjectively guilty will be found not, we have a very high bar for being convicted of a crime.

Stupidity I suppose. Mixed with wildly misplaced superiority that they can get away with it and their obvious lies will be believed.
You see this so often on police documentaries like 24 hours in police custody etc.
I have the misfortune to know somebody like this in real life. I cannot fathom their cognitive process at all.

I think it’s because they are psychopaths. A normal person couldn’t do it.

The slim chance that there’ll be reasonable doubt?

The sycamore two do seem to be unfathomably dim don’t they?

my exDP denied cheating, to my face, even when I presented him with irrefutable proof. It was staggering.

In the slim chance that they will get off

It is also a way to delay a custodial sentence. For example, someone I am working with is facing trial for rape. He pleaded not guilty at the plea hearing and therefore remains on bail until the court date which is in late 2026. Remand awaiting trial is very rare.

They’re wasting more public money by pleading no guilty. Their fines and community service should be increased

Because it means there has to be a trial and they can delay their sentence.

In the case of sycamore guys, they have each decided to plead not guilty by each claiming it was the other one who actually felled the tree. The phone footage is too dark to tell who is actually doing the cutting.

When more than one person is involved in committing a crime, and it’s not possible to prove which one actually did it and there are no other witnesses, sometimes they both end up being acquitted. So there’s a small chance that the sycamore vandals could get off. Unlikely, but worth a try from their point of view.

I have thought long and hard about this recently and I think it may come down to social conditioning. I was brought by two bible thumping anglicans and as a consequence if I think about telling a white lie I have a vision of my mother slapping the back of my legs while screaming, "Thou shalt not tell lies." Guilt works in the same way, guilt eats me from the inside so I never do anything that I think may make me feel guilty.

That is an extreme answer but I don't think all humans have a natural sense of guilt and if it has not been reinforced, lies follow.

My ASD son will quite often deny he did something, even if I watched him do it.
I don't understand why entirely. But I think he can't accept he could do something "wrong"? So he tells himself he didn't do it at all rather than accept he got it wrong.

They will be higher.

Sentence is higher after being found guilty after a trial.

Because then they can carry on telling their mates they were innocent and stitched up. We see clear evidence of cheating on mumsnet all the time but even with proof people will bend their minds to kid themselves the facts are wrong.

I suppose people going to trial hope for a sympathetic jury who won't convict even if they think they did it because they don't think they should be punished.

I'm sure plenty of men go on trial for violent crimes against women and get off because despite evidence of abuse, some men think it is their right amd justified so the abuse isn't "abuse", it's "keeping your woman in line"

I certainly wouldn't unless there was a clear benefit in doing so.
Why incriminate myself?

But that's because they get a lesser sentence if they plead guilty. The sentence should be higher for a non guilty plea, not lowered.
In the riots, police and ex police (on the side of the rioting) pleaded not guilty until footage emerged. Andrew denied being in locations even though there was video evidence. There's parents who will deny their child has done something, even though it was witnessed/on camera. That sense of entitlement/lack of responsibility is often taught and across all walks of life.

There is a belief that with a jury trial you are more likely to be found not guilty.

I think Sycamore Gap guys may have badly misjudged this one though!

Having sat on a jury, I can now understand why people do it. Trying to convict someone in many circumstances is hard work.

They know they're bang to rights, so they're blaming each other.

The reason people usually maintain their innocence is that they know the evidence is overwhelming and that they will probably be convicted but by pleading not guilty there's a chance, no matter how small, that their legal team will be able to get them off on a technicality, or they'll be repeated mistrials to the point a judge decides enough is enough.

The other reason is the risk/reward of pleading guilty or not guilty. Does the penalty for not pleading guilty feel worth the risk? Think of scumbags like James Hanratty, he maintained his innocence until the gallows because he knew if he admitted it, he'd have hanged anyway. In his case it led to a decades long fight to overturn his conviction posthumously, a fight which his family and friends continued until advances in forensics proved that his semen was present on the underwear of a rape/murder victim that he'd claimed he'd never met.

Lastly the trial by jury process inevitably leads to some wacky results sometimes. Pick a dozen citizens at random and you're bound to get some dodgy characters. Sometimes these people can sway a jury. A colleague of mine used to say if she was ever called to do jury duty she'd find the defendent innocent if white and guilty if black. Jury trials are part of the reason rape cases usually end in a not guilty verdict too.

I think a lot of thrillers almost make idols of the criminals and portray murderers as masterminds. In reality a majority of violent criminals are below average intelligence. They thought they could sit back and watch people getting outraged and be amused but didn't think through any actual consequence if they were caught because they thought they were too clever.

If you don’t plead guilty and are found guilty, or only change your plea to guilty at a later date, sentencing guidelines require a heavier sentence. You get credit for pleading guilty earlier.

DS does this, it's infuriating, especially as he also can't stand having people think he's lying so telling him off becomes a minefield of trying to avoid too much dysregulation.

I think sometimes it's his rigid thinking maybe with a bit of anthropomorphising inanimate objects - he knocked over a drink while playing with a basketball once I saw it happen but he insisted he hadn't, I think in his mind he didn't mean to do it and it was the ball that did it not him therefore it was nothing to do with him.

Some people are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions.

Narcissism?

My mother is a narcissist and I've seen her do/say some horrid things

But when confronted,she will lie her way out of it as in her head,she genuinely believes she's innocent

A 'minor' example is she was in a cafe and was caught by the staff loading sugar,sait,pepper and teaspoons into her bag

The staff confronted her and told her to put it back

She did but by the time she'd got home,she'd convinced herself she hadn't done it and slandered the cafe to high heaven (thank god she can't 'do' the Internet or she would have really gone to town on TripAdvisor)

As it was,loads of people believed her and stopped going to the cafe in support of her

Or the time a book 'accidentally' fell into her bag in a charity shop

No way did she put it there and walk out-she wouldn't dream of stealing-it definitely fell off the shelf and landed in her handbag and she didn't notice

It's Oddly fascinating to watch

I thought the judge had already said that regardless of who was holding the chainsaw and who was filming, they would be equally guilty.

There’s the legal principle of joint enterprise.