If someone confesses to a crime but denies it was wrong...

[Anonymousanona]

Hello, I will not be adding any details of the crime that took place due to it's sensitive nature but I was wondering if anyone had any info on what I'm pondering.

We are in the very early days of a police investigation, the suspect has admitted to the crime (also CCTV evidence and all the rest, there is no claiming they did not do it) but is showing zero remorse and refuses to see it as an abnormal thing to do.

Does anyone know how this will look to the court/police. Will it help the victim, in the sense that this person clearly sees no wrong doing and needs to be punished to show how wrong it was.
Or help the suspect, this person clearly sees no wrong doing and therefore didn't believe they were committing a crime.

As I say I won't give details of the crime but I will give a similar example to help explain, sensitive made up scenario ahead
For example an elderly woman angrily using racial slurs towards a person of colour and then claiming they were normal words and not offensive back in her day.

Thank you.

It really depends on the circumstances & the crime. Some crimes for example you need to deliberately & purposefully commit, you can’t commit “by accident” (by law).

I would also say depending on the age, mental state etc of the person who has committed the crime then this tactic could be to get a lesser punishment.

I’ve they’ve admitted to it, isn’t that pleading guilty?

Do you mean: is it a reasonable defence that the person genuinely did not know they were breaking the law?

Or are you asking if it is a reasonable defence that the person does not believe the law that was broken should have been a law in the first place?

They are two separate questions. You would presumably need to have something to back up the first one.

And obviously, context is everything, so without providing it you will get limited "help" on here.

Thank you for the responses. To be honest I'm not sure with any of the answers, I've never been involved in anything legal before.

The person was arrested, in the polices words "x admitted what X did but showed little remorse for X actions and did not acknowledge how inappropriate they were"

What PP said about intent is right. Eg, it’s not a crime to carry a screwdriver in public if you are an electrician, but if you’re a burglar or intending to hurt/threaten someone with it, it is.

In other cases, not acknowledging what you have done looks bad for sentencing. They look at insight and remorse, so saying ‘yes I used a racial slur because they are <racial slur>’ wouldn’t go down well. There’s less chance of rehabilitation if the offender doesn’t see what they have done is wrong.

There’s a phrase: ignorance is not a defence.

I don’t know if that helps in this scenario?

I cant help as I and others don't know what this crime is.

If its dropping litter - it is a crime and that is a fact. Accept or not it is a crime

Was it dropping litter? (OP, no offence, you get our plight, ie no context, no real answers)

Ok well that could probably apply to most people committing crimes - if they believed it was that bad they wouldn't have done it!

So it's not going to help them, but I don't know how it would affect sentencing.

If they knew it was illegal but did it anyway, and don't think it was wrong so they'd do it again - assuming they are of sound mind, I should think they'd get the book thrown at them.

And is what was done against the law? Are there any defences? Eg if it was physical, might it be self defence? If it was libel, might what they said be true?

There are a lot of ‘grey areas’ where police can sometimes try to persuade people to admit guilt where in actual fact there may be defences in law to what they did.

Therefore, what do you expect the police to do - not charge her/him?

Commits crime, admits to it but no remorse. If I was an officer of the law, I'd ensure they were charged, taken to court, etc in the hope they are educated at the late stage that it is not correct to commit crime and get away with it without any consequences.

If there are mitigating circumstances (eg mental health or illness like dementia) then it may be the CPS decide not to prosecute if it's not in the pubic interest to do so. If that matches what is going on then you need to gather evidence to show this to the police. If otherwise of sound mind but the person disagrees with the law, then that's different. We can all have opinions about laws but we still have to abide by them, whether we agree or not.

It really does depend on the crime and the circumstances though. I'd suggest seeking legal advice. (I'm not a legal bod)

Just to be clear I would very much like this person to be thrown away for a long time. I am not on the side of the suspect here.

The suspect is a stranger, I don't know their mental state or any of that information.

In the example you've given, what is the crime that the person has committed? Harassment or assault? If so, then I think the use of a racial slur would potentially compound the matter as a race hate crime. However if the incident itself doesn't meet criminal threshold then I think this is where a non-crime hate incident comes into play.

As the old saying goes - ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

Besides, even if they know it is illegal, asserting that the law is wrong and they are right is no excuse either. They can deny all they like, but they have broken the law all the same, and should be treated as such.

The one and only mitigating circumstance would be if they were suffering from some severe mental health problem and could not be considered to be of sound mind, or if they have dementia or some such. They would still be guilty of the offence, but probably wouldn't suffer the accompanying sentence.

It does depend on if there is clear consensus on where the person’s words/actions are criminal or not.
Case in point : JK Rowling earlier this week.
If this post is about JK Rowling, there’s a whole board for discussing the conflict between women’s rights and transgender rights.

Thank you, I appreciate there's not much help you can give without the crime or circumstances. Absolutely nothing to do with jk Rowling, this is a very upsetting family matter.

@isitbananatimealready if it turns out the suspect does have dementia or a similar illness (as I say I have no idea of their circumstances) and are found guilty of the offence but do not serve the sentence, does this mean they are still legally found Guilty.

Apologies if that seems like a very silly question, i guess I'm looking for any sort of justice even if it's just the court saying "This was very wrong and very illegal - but we can't punish" rather than them getting away with it completely.

Is there any scope for condemning the behavior outside of the courts?
Like if this was a customer/client and your family member is an employee, could the person be warned that continuing this behavior will lead to them being dropped/banned as a client/customer?

Is this misgendering?

Someone has referred to a transgender individual by their birth sex and admits they have done so but doesn't think it's a crime?

Of course it won’t help the suspect- it’s just a version “well she had it coming” isn’t it.
even the murderers of sex offenders get convicted and sentenced.

It depends on the crime. Each crime has a checklist of elements - some require intent to do something, some don't (so the act itself is sufficient), etc. Without knowing the crime alleged to have been committed the question is meaningless.

@Anonymousanona Have a look on the CPS website. https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps

In the scenario you gave, the police would need to gather evidence, incl the suspect's mental health, and present the case to the CPS. The CPS then decide whether to prosecute based on realistic chance of conviction and if in the public interest to do so. Therefore, it really does depend on lots of mitigating factors as to whether it will progress to court.

The scenario you gave sounds like a possible Summary offence dealt by magistrates court. https://www.draycottbrowne.co.uk/investigations/types-criminal-offence

Also: https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/victim-support/going-to-court/

Very sorry someone close to you has been a victim of this sort of onslaught.

They could plead guilty to using the slurs but say that they did not realise the slurs were of such bad impact…I.e their intent was not to be so offensive / hostile etc. in which case that may of may not be taken as mitigation. But they would still be Guilty,

They could plead not guilty… claim they didn’t realise etc.., and nevertheless be found guilty because the evidence shows they are guilty… and the claimed lack of intent may or may not be taken as mitigation. But they would still be Guilty.

Lack of remorse tends not to help with any plea for mitigation.

However, I have sat in magistrates courts and watched offenders found guilty of actual assault aggravated by racist abuse walk free with a Suspended sentence. So don’t get your hopes too high.

I am not a lawyer but I have observed a few trials.

I have no idea, I don't know anything about the legalities of it.