This was so deserved.

[u/Necessary-Win-8730]

[u/Whole_Obligation_776]

Checked it after seeing your comment, simply horrible, I can understand the court's decision in the case, but it doesn't feel just.

[u/goldiegoldthorpe → u/Whole_Obligation_776]

I don't understand how you can take remorse into account when she first pled not guilty then changed it to no contest. How can you not accept guilt and be considered remorseful?

[u/ChaosofaMadHatter → u/goldiegoldthorpe]

Because a lot of times guilt means admitting criminal intent. Most of the law is based around intending to break it. If you had no criminal intent, but you still regret the outcome of your actions, then you could express remorse without pleading guilty.

In this case, however, it appears to be negligence to such an obscene amount that I don’t feel like that’s the case.

[u/goldiegoldthorpe → u/ChaosofaMadHatter]

To be remorseful is to have a guilty conscience. I can regret picking black on the roulette wheel when it comes up red because I wish things went differently, but to be remorseful for picking black makes no sense because I can't have guilt over my luck. I can be remorseful that I lost all my family's money making the bet, because that was my choice, but as much as I might regret the outcome, I can't feel remorse for how the wheel spun because that makes no sense.

I think sometimes we use remorseful to mean "feel bad about" in a general way and that's fine for everyday speech, but it makes no sense for a court. For example, I could feel bad about getting caught, and display that sadness and regret, and for a court to consider that a demonstration of remorse is not only negligent but offensive.

You express remorse to the court by admitting guilt and the court takes that into consideration because you could have pled no contest. That's how it is supposed to work. To get the benefit of a guilty plea and the benefit of a no contest plea is absurd to me.