This book addresses the fundamental ethical and legal aspects, penal consequences, and social context arising from a citizen’s acceptance of guilt. The focus is upon sentencing people who have pleaded guilty; in short, post-adjudication, rather than issues arising from discussions in the pretrial phase of the criminal process.
The vast majority of defendants across all common law jurisdictions plead guilty and as a result receive a reduced sentence. Concessions by a defendant attract more lenient State punishment in all western legal systems. The concession is significant: At a stroke, a guilty plea relieves the State of the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and in open court. Plea-based sentencing has become even more visible in recent years.
The book provides insightful commentary on the following questions:
- If an individual voluntarily accepts guilt, should the State receive this plea without further investigation or any disinterested adjudication? - Is it ethically acceptable to allow suspects and defendants, to self-convict in this manner, without independent confirmation and evidence to support a conviction?
- If it is acceptable, what is the appropriate State response to such offenders? - If the defendant is detained pretrial, the ability to secure release in return for a plea may be particularly enticing. Might it be too enticing, resulting in wrongful convictions?
1. The Ethics of Pleading Guilty and the State Response to Self-convicting Offenders Julian V Roberts (University of Oxford, UK) and Jesper Ryberg (Roskilde University, Denmark) 2. When Should We Plead Guilty? RA Duff (University of Stirling, UK) 3. Guilty Plea, Sentencing Discounts and Retributivism Jesper Ryberg (Roskilde University, Denmark) 4. Guilty Pleas, Sentencing Reductions, and Non-punishment of the Innocent Zachary Hoskins (University of Nottingham, UK) 5. Rewarding Virtue: An Ethical Defence of Plea-based Sentence Reductions Julian V Roberts (University of Oxford, UK) and Netanel Dagan (Hebrew University, Israel) 6. The Limited Moral Relevance of Pleas and Verdicts Adam Kolber (Brooklyn Law School, USA) 7. The Guilty Plea and Self-Respect Gabrielle Watson (University of Oxford, UK) 8. Why Should Guilty Pleas Matter? Thom Brooks (Durham University, UK) 9. Victim-related Assumptions Underlying Plea-based Sentence Reductions: A Communicative and Experiential Framework Marie Manikis (McGill University, Canada) 10. Plea-Based Sentence Reductions: Legal Assumptions and Empirical Realities Rebecca Helm (University of Exeter, UK) 11. Plea Negotiations and Mitigation Mike Hough (Birkbeck, University of London, UK) and Jessica Jacobson (Birkbeck, University of London, UK) 12. Guilty Pleas, Fools' Bargains and Wonderful Justice Leo Zaibert (Union College, USA)
Julian V Roberts is Professor of Criminology at the University of Oxford, UK. Jesper Ryberg is Professor of Ethics and Philosophy of Law at Roskilde University, Denmark.
Reviews for Sentencing the Self-Convicted: The Ethics of Pleading Guilty
Julian Roberts and Jesper Ryberg have assembled an estimable group of scholars whose contributions address a range of issues related to the submission of guilty pleas (or in some legal regimes, admissions of guilt) by individuals charged with crimes. As the essays in this valuable collection reveal, sentencing the ‘self-convicted’ is controversial in ways that reveal deeper fault lines among penal and criminal procedure theorists. -- Richard L. Lippke * Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Books *
