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.

There are as many things which are illegal as there are people who don't believe such things should be illegal.
The person will remain guilty whether they agree with the law or not. Mental health/dementia may be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing, but will not affect verdict.

Remorse/admission of guilt can be a mitigating factor in sentencing guidelines so it can result in a lesser penalty but they can't add more punishment because of lack of remorse/admission of guilt if that makes sense.

Here's a prime example of someone being let off because his defence claimed he didn't know it was wrong to groom and rape a 13 year old girl!🙄

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/amp/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html

'Said he had been taught 'women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground''

I think everybody knows what's against the law even if they don't think it's wrong. So someone taking home from work a pack of envelopes to use privately knows it's theft even if they think the company can afford to lose them. A man who sexually assaults an unconscious woman knows he could get locked up for that but seemingly couldn't care less as he thinks he has the right to do what he wants.

Unless this person has dementia then the fact they didn't know it was wrong won't be believed. If their defence is they thought it was okay thing to do then the jury or magistrates will think worse of them for that.

Read my previous post and you can see it is a defence and one that was accepted by an idiot judge.

Surely a crime is a crime? I could say that, yes, I drive at 40 miles an hour down the road but didn't know it was a 30 mile per hour speed limit. Regardless of whether i thought I could drive at 40 miles per hour or no, I've broken the law.

Hi @Anonymousanona . Lawyer here. None of your questions can be answered without understanding what happened and the charge. As PPs have said some crimes requires an intention/recklessness about the behaviour, so a lack of intent would mean no charge/conviction (though there is often a lower level offence). Again on mental state that might lead to a not guilty judgement (for example you will often hear in relation to murder, not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect), or they may not be subject to trial if unfit to do so- it depends on both the crime (i.e. whether that kind of defence is available as a matter of law) and the state of the alleged offender. Even if a specific defence is available but not successful serious mental health issues/evidence of lack of intent is likely to be used in mitigation.

if the crime is one intent is not relevant and they are convicted a lack of remorse tends to go against an offender, though if someone is elderly and it was clear there was no intent/recklessness around a crime it might have come mitigation effect.

Notwithstanding the above sentences in this country tend to be shockingly low for people who have had no experience of the criminal justice system so don’t expect to much as that is likely to be more upsetting when they don’t get it. Maybe take a look at the sentencing guidelines for the alleged offence (Google) to get an idea of what they might get.

Defence arguments based on habitual language use are not unheard of. How it looks in court will depend on a variety of factors specific to situation and the people involved.

There was a well-known case a few years ago where the F word was effectively normalised within a specific context.

No, it isn't a defence. And in the story you refer to, the defendant pleaded guilty; his alleged naivety was put forward as mitigation only.