I wonder if they were advised by their lawyer not to plead guilty?
I wonder if they will ever be able to admit to themselves that what they did was wrong?
This might be the best thing for them. Being inescapably confronted with their own behaviour might be the only way to get through to them, especially if they themselves decided to plead not guilty.
I can see the argument that the reason they are so distraught is that they didn’t just admit their wrongdoing, were convinced to double down by their lawyer, the same kind of person who encouraged them to behave like that in the first place.
Probably not though, eh? It’s a hell of a contortion in order to attribute any empathy whatsoever to them, and some of their compatriots did plead guilty.
So empathy for them is probably not warranted until they make the decision to rehabilitate themselves…
Sad, especially since I have to literally remind myself that prison rape is never funny or justified. Getting my dander up is one thing, but becoming a monster is another.
Whichmakes me think of a pretty decent book I once read called_Fuhrer Ex_, by and about an East German ex neo-nazi. The Short version: he drifted away from it not through some big epihany, but because he had some new friends and had started feeling embarassed about his old friends.
That’s the point I was trying to make; sorry if that was unclear. You had said if they’d had a racist parade any other day, they probably would have gotten away with it, but the pointing shotguns and screaming insults at a birthday party was just too much for white people to justify. I agree with you, because it’s that additional conduct that is a crime.
By itself, participating in a racist parade doesn’t make you a criminal; it just makes you an asshole.
What I meant was that pointing a shotgun at and threatening an grown black man walking down the street might not have lead them to this result - they could have said he threatened them, police obviously weren’t that interested in pursuing, it would be harder to get widespread interest. But because it was kids, and specifically kids at a birthday party, they got a lot more negative attention.
I think that their power should be limited more than they are already, surely. They are far too powerful, and that power is being abused.
However, I have no problem with the idea of some form of leniency for those who, admitting freely their actions and the harm that they have done, spare the State the cost and the victims the further trauma of a trial.
It shouldn’t be on the order of “You hit the guy and he landed wrong and died. If it goes to trial, we’ll charge you with first-degree murder and you’ll be facing life without parole, but we’ll accept a plea to involuntary manslaughter, where you’ll serve two to five years.” However, I have less of a problem with “You hit the guy, and he landed wrong and died. It’s clearly involuntary manslaughter. If it goes to trial, you might be facing 5-7 years, which is the statutory maximum. Plead guilty, and we’ll reduce it to 2-5, which is the statutory minimum.”
So: I don’t think they should be able to accept a plea bargain until after the charges are filed, or for a lesser charge than the charges that have been filed; I don’t think they should be able to change the charges filed to more serious crimes after they have been filed; I don’t think they should be able to accept plea bargains that are outside the regular sentencing scope for the crime being pled to. However, I do think they should be able to reduce the charge to a less serious crime after it has been filed, and then accept a plea to that lesser crime (with the caveat that the defendant can then refuse to plead and insist on a trial for that lesser crime, which cannot be re-upgraded).
IANAL, certainly not a criminal lawyer, so I’m sure that that plan would need substantial modification in order to work the way I’d want it to, but I think it would shift the balance quite a bit towards protecting innocent (or otherwise) defendants from being pressured to unwisely agree to a plea bargain.
