Understanding of sincere repentance in the decisions of the Supreme Court: theoretical analysis

Abstract

The article examines the Supreme Court's legal rules regarding the defining features of sincere repentance and the factors that indicate its presence. It has been established that the Supreme Court often resorts to an ambiguous interpretation of the content and forms of manifestation of sincere repentance and the use of value judgments when it applies the provisions of the Criminal Code regarding sincere repentance. In several decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that active repentance is present when two conditions are met. First, the perpetrator shall fully confess to the committed crime, and second, she shall truthfully testify about all known to her circumstances of the offense. The Supreme Court also noted that if a person conceals the substantial circumstances of a crime, which significantly complicates its disclosure, confesses only in part of committed to avoid a just punishment, her repentance cannot be considered sincere, genuine. Such language, full of value judgments used by the Court, does not facilitate the uniformity in applying the criminal law.Supreme Court's case-law suggests no need to establish all the possible forms of manifestation of sincere repentance in the perpetrator's conduct to apply to mitigate his sentence. It is generally sufficient to prove a perpetrator's confession and establish that he has faithfully testified about all known to him circumstances of the committed crime to law enforcement. Other possible manifestations of sincere repentance affect the credibility of the perpetrator's statement regarding his genuine repentance.It has been established that active repentance does not require the perpetrator to agree with the qualification of the crime offered by law enforcement. The right to disagree with the qualification of crime by prosecution is an essential part of the constitutional right to self-protection against criminal charges. Narrowing down the scope of this right may not constitute a pre-condition for mitigation of criminal liability.