This is a question for lawyers, particularly criminal defense lawyers. It's something I've been really curious about but I don't know anyone who might know the answer....
I hope it's OK to mention specific cases on here. I've followed the Michael Skakel case, and something's been bothering me about it.
As I understand it, he was charged with a crime that happened when he was 15. At the time the maximum penalty was something like 5 years in Juvenile lockup. Now he's 40 and since he can't be sent to Juvenile, when found guilty he was sentenced to 20 years.
My question is, isn't giving him such a harsh sentence a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination? It makes his punishment four or five times harsher than it would have been had he confessed at the time the crime was committed. No appeals have brought this up, so I don't know if it's valid or not.
I do believe he's guilty, but doesn't something just seem very unfair about the sentencing?
2007-06-25 11:58:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anne M 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
a harsh sentence is never a violation of the privledge against self incrimination. all that self incrimination protects is a persons right not to testify against himself, he can plead the 5th amendment instead.
yes his sentence is harsher now. he would have been better off confessing at the time. but this doesnt violate any of his rights. he had a fair trial and was convicted based on current sentencing guidelines. the fact that he evaded prosecution for so long and remained a free man probably has something to do with the sentence. but to answer your question, no, his term doesnt violate his 5th amendment protection against self incrimination.
2007-06-25 12:27:33 · answer #1 · answered by tortfeasor21913 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole situation has nothing to do with self-incrimination. He has at no time been forced to testify against himself.
Now, the Juvenile Justice system is pretty much "optional" for the Justice System overall. There is no requirement in the Constitution that it exist in the first place. It was created to deal with juvenile offenders, but it does not automatically get jurisdiction over any specific case.
When the juvenile in question is a repeat offender, or the crime is particularly heinous, a juvenile may be tried as an adult. Sometimes, if an individual has committed a crime as a juvenile but crosses the age limit for the Juvenile System, they might be tried as a Juvenile anyway. But there's no garuntee.
In the Skakel case, the Defense did argue that it occurred when Skakel was a juvenile, and tried to get it moved to juvenile court. Given that he was a middle aged man, it didn't fly. The purposes for which the entire system was created simply didn't apply to this circumstance.
No, nothing seems unfair about the sentencing at all. What seems unfair is that a high school girl was beaten to death with a golf club and it took thirty years to find the perpetrator.
2007-06-25 19:10:58 · answer #2 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it was not a violation of his right to incriminate himself because he was never forced to provide a confession. That is the only right he has under the 5th amendment. The fact that he is serving a longer sentence because he did not confess 25 years ago is no different than other defendants who refuse a plea agreement a for less jail time and consequently lose and receve more jail time. Consequently 20 years for murder in state time is not a very severe sentence condsidering he could have been looking at life.
2007-06-25 19:14:59 · answer #3 · answered by levindis 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I'm interested anyway)
Was the crime something that a 15 year old could be tried as an adult for? Murder or Manslaughter? 35 years is a long time for the Statute of Limitations on most things.
2007-06-25 19:06:52 · answer #4 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at it this way. He got to have a childhood and he lived a free life for a long time. Karma came back and bit him hard.
2007-06-25 19:11:07 · answer #5 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No sorry, I prefer a non criminal profession than a lawyer.
2007-06-25 19:20:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
To answer your first question.....yes...to many!
2007-06-25 19:01:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋