2007-02-09 11:32:59 · 5 answers · asked by apologetickid 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
For a criminal defendant, pleading no contest enables him to deny the act at a later civil trial. An accused may find this useful when the criminal penalties are light compared to the cost of a trial, but the potential civil penalties are great. For example, an actor accused of punching a pushy photographer may plead no contest to the criminal charge of assault and pay a small fine or do community service, and still fight the photographer tooth-and-nail on a million-dollar civil suit.
2007-02-09 11:40:41 · answer #1 · answered by just_another_guy_out_there 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pleading guilty--you are admitting your guilt to a crime.
No contest--No contest is similar to a guilty plea. One who chooses to plea is not pleading either guilty nor not guilty of a crime. However, one who pleads no contest is accepting a judges sentence is if he or she were pleading guilty. Pleading "no contest" provides a safety measure, so that the plea can not be used as evidence against him if charges were to be brought about in a civil trial.
2007-02-09 19:42:37 · answer #2 · answered by Lisa S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not guilty will result in a trail where you can fight to prove you are not guilty.
No contest is as good as pleading guilty. No contest is not an admission of guilt, but it is viewed as one in the court's eyes and will be treated as one at sentencing
2007-02-09 19:35:46 · answer #3 · answered by SainT 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not guilty is verbally admitting guilt. No contest is letting the state call you guilty and you not defending yourself. Therefore, you have a guilty verdict without you having admitted to it. Not a big difference other than maybe a mental one.
2007-02-09 19:37:03 · answer #4 · answered by BigEasy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
None at all. Both pleas are treated the same.
2007-02-09 19:37:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋