The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that District Judge Michael Gibbons should not have admonished convicted bank robber Steven John Simmons during his sentencing because Simmons never admitted he committed the crime.
"He's shown no remorse and blamed other people. He's accepted no responsibility," Gibbons said. "Is that somebody who is ready to change?"
Twelve people believed that on Nov. 22, 2005, Simmons robbed the Minden Bank of America. During that robbery he brandished a weapon and then he ran from the bank with $4,708 of other people's money.
Simmons apologized at the sentencing, but never came out and admitted the deed. Gibbons then sentenced him to 20 years in prison.
The penalty for robbery under Nevada law is 2-15 years, which with the doubling for using a firearm, meant Simmons could have received a maximum of 30 years in prison.
We're flabbergasted that the Nevada Supreme Court would differentiate between someone who admitted a crime and someone who was convicted in this way.
Those who admit their crimes expect some leniency, not just because they've saved the people the expense of a trial, but also because they've shown some contrition.
We turn to a jury when the accused denies the charges and makes the state prove its case.
Should the jury find the person innocent, they are free and no one may ever bring the same charges again.
But should the jury find the person guilty, they are considered guilty as if they had admitted the crime.
We count on our judges to put justice in perspective. The Nevada Supreme Court has undermined this important function with a ruling that is essentially a gag order for judges who sentence people who have been convicted by a jury of their peers.
