Sitting at the table in front of the judge was Mr. Roger Smither, convicted of murdering a child, speaking before his sentencing, with the victim's family in the audience. He said:
"If I had done this, then lying and saying I did not do it would have a very small selfish benefit, allowing me to claim my innocence with no benefit to the sentencing, raising little doubt among anyone.
But it would have a very price to the family, denying them the closure they need that their loved one's killer has been caught.
The tiny benefit of any of lying would be outweighed greatly by the harm to them, and I know this.
If I did not do this - and I did not - then what can I do but insist on my innocence?
Secondarily, there is another benefit: informing the family that the killer of their loved one remains uncaught. This, apart from any self-serving effect, is a duty to them.
I understand that on the scale of evaluating my statement sits a hundred pound rock, with a label on it, "he'll say anything he thinks will help him. If he'd murder the child, why would he respect the truth?"
I further understand that this rock has a blinding effect. That the time for the family to question whether I might be innocent has passed - that was a question for the investigation and the trial, to see if there was any proof that I was not there. Had there been such proof, they would have accepted it then, but now, it would be more than hard, it would be tortuous for them to ask, what if he is innocent? They need closure and to feel the killer has been caught.
If I'm right about that blinding effect, I might as well read from the phone book for a few minutes, and the procedure will end, and their views will not have changed any more than if anything else is said.
But what choice does an innocent man have but to say he is innocent? And I am innocent.
Recognizing that this conflict between my interests is at such odds as to make the family not hear the statement and not hear that their loved one's killer remains uncaught makes it so difficult for them to hear, the idea is raised about offering to give up the benefit in order to have them hear the statement more - but that is not practical. If they accept the statement, it's hardly possible for them to continue to support the conviction.
So without being able to remove that rock, I can offer this partial removal. I understand that judges sentencing are most favorable towards defendants who confess their crime and express sincere remorse. So if helping myself was the motive, that is the action to do it. So I am paying the price of doing what especially angers a judge - insisting on my innocence, likely resulting in a worse sentence, in order to say to the family that I am innocent and the killer remains uncaught. Perhaps this will help lighten the rock a little for them to hear the statement.
I understand how much more harmful a guilty man claiming innocence would be to the family than any small benefit he would get by doing so. And knowing that, I am innocent."
"If I had done this, then lying and saying I did not do it would have a very small selfish benefit, allowing me to claim my innocence with no benefit to the sentencing, raising little doubt among anyone.
But it would have a very price to the family, denying them the closure they need that their loved one's killer has been caught.
The tiny benefit of any of lying would be outweighed greatly by the harm to them, and I know this.
If I did not do this - and I did not - then what can I do but insist on my innocence?
Secondarily, there is another benefit: informing the family that the killer of their loved one remains uncaught. This, apart from any self-serving effect, is a duty to them.
I understand that on the scale of evaluating my statement sits a hundred pound rock, with a label on it, "he'll say anything he thinks will help him. If he'd murder the child, why would he respect the truth?"
I further understand that this rock has a blinding effect. That the time for the family to question whether I might be innocent has passed - that was a question for the investigation and the trial, to see if there was any proof that I was not there. Had there been such proof, they would have accepted it then, but now, it would be more than hard, it would be tortuous for them to ask, what if he is innocent? They need closure and to feel the killer has been caught.
If I'm right about that blinding effect, I might as well read from the phone book for a few minutes, and the procedure will end, and their views will not have changed any more than if anything else is said.
But what choice does an innocent man have but to say he is innocent? And I am innocent.
Recognizing that this conflict between my interests is at such odds as to make the family not hear the statement and not hear that their loved one's killer remains uncaught makes it so difficult for them to hear, the idea is raised about offering to give up the benefit in order to have them hear the statement more - but that is not practical. If they accept the statement, it's hardly possible for them to continue to support the conviction.
So without being able to remove that rock, I can offer this partial removal. I understand that judges sentencing are most favorable towards defendants who confess their crime and express sincere remorse. So if helping myself was the motive, that is the action to do it. So I am paying the price of doing what especially angers a judge - insisting on my innocence, likely resulting in a worse sentence, in order to say to the family that I am innocent and the killer remains uncaught. Perhaps this will help lighten the rock a little for them to hear the statement.
I understand how much more harmful a guilty man claiming innocence would be to the family than any small benefit he would get by doing so. And knowing that, I am innocent."
Facebook
Twitter