,
13 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
There’s some understandable concern about the notion of “good character” being cited in respect of a man who has been convicted of rape. A brief thread may help demystify this principle of criminal sentencing. [THREAD]
At first glance, the phrases “good character” and “convicted rapist” do not sit easily alongside each other. To this end, the first thing to note is that “good character” is better characterised as “previous good character”.
So what is this? And why is it relevant?
So what is this? And why is it relevant?
When passing sentence, the courts treat defendants differently according to their previous convictions. The Sentencing Guidelines, which courts are legally required to follow, explains how.
Guidelines list aggravating and mitigating factors which courts must consider.
Guidelines list aggravating and mitigating factors which courts must consider.
If you have previous convictions for “relevant offences” - similar offences of this type - this is an aggravating feature - i.e. it will usually result in a longer sentence than you would otherwise have received.
(This is the Rape Guideline, but the principles apply universally)
(This is the Rape Guideline, but the principles apply universally)
If you have a few previous convictions but they are not relevant - either because of their nature or their age - this can be a mitigating factor - i.e. the court treats you more leniently than it otherwise would - or, commonly, the court will treat character as neutral.
If you have no previous convictions at all, this will always count as a mitigating factor.
However there is then a further potential mitigating factor - “previous good character and/or exemplary conduct”. As the Guideline states, this is more than just “no convictions”
However there is then a further potential mitigating factor - “previous good character and/or exemplary conduct”. As the Guideline states, this is more than just “no convictions”
You need to show that, prior to the offence, you didn’t merely keep your head down and lead a law-abiding life, but went above and beyond to do good. If you were this kind of person, it can count in your favour.
But.
But.
The more serious the offence, the less “previous good character” helps you (and, if you used it to facilitate the offence - such as abusing your position to exploit victims, it can be turned into a further aggravating factor)
Rape is an offence where, due to its seriousness, previous good character very rarely makes a difference, as the Guideline makes clear:
Nevertheless, when a defence advocate is addressing the court in mitigation, even if the seriousness of the offence means that “previous good character” is unlikely to help, they will often refer to the fact that a defendant with no previous has “lost his good character”.
This is because part of the punishment inherent in a criminal conviction is the stigma; the permanent mark against your name. Your first conviction is unlike any other; it changes your official character forever. For a minor offence, this factor may persuade a court to be lenient
For an offence as serious as rape, it will not make a jot of difference to the sentence, but it is still one of the standard observations that defence advocates will make on their client’s behalf, if only so that the client has heard it said.
So that’s the end of this mini-lecture on previous good character.
TL;DR: Previous good character is an important legal construct which will properly be raised wherever a defendant may qualify, but makes no difference to the sentence in offences as serious as rape.
[ENDS]
TL;DR: Previous good character is an important legal construct which will properly be raised wherever a defendant may qualify, but makes no difference to the sentence in offences as serious as rape.
[ENDS]
