why did senator craig plea guilty?
2007-08-29 10:10:42 · 9 answers · asked by specal k 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Don't want to even guess why Craig did what he did. But guilty means just that, you did it. No contest means you may or may not have done it but you don't want to fight the charges. There is no admission of guilt.
2007-08-29 10:16:38 · answer #1 · answered by Cinner 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
If a no contest plea is allowed, the defendant does not admit guilt. The MN court may not have that plea; it's possible it wasn't available.
What I wonder is why Craig didn't have a lawyer, and why it took over two months for the plea to leak. I wonder if it was supposed to be hushed up somehow, which is why Craig felt he didn't need a lawyer. But then someone behind the scenes in the MN court or the police disagreed, and tipped off "Roll Call" online.
Also, there was some type of suspended sentence, an informal judicial supervision for one year. That may have ordinarily put the record of the plea into an obscure file somewhere, to be reviewed in one year at which time the judge would use his or her discretion to dismiss the whole case if the defendant had not offended again. In other words, it would have been completely buried. But then someone leaked the arrangement...
2007-08-29 17:18:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No contest has two specific legal benefits -- it cannot be used as an admission in later proceedings, and doesn't count as an admission for purposes of later civil trials.
Other than that, the net result is the same -- acceptance of the charges and no defenses being raised.
Craig plead guilty either because he admitted that he did what he was charged with doing, or because despite being a Senator he has no understanding of the legal system and cannot understand the basic concept of a guilty plea.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he isn't stupid and that he really did understand what "guilty" means.
2007-08-29 17:17:39 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you plea guilty, you can always claim that you shouldn't have, while if you plea not guilty, many many things get dug up, during investigation, that shows that you should have.
best thing to do is plea guilty, play the victim role, cry about how you only did it so you didn't have to waste time in court, if you have too many skeletons in the closet(pun intended) that you don't want exposed, and let the media think justice is served, so they leave it alone.
2007-08-29 17:41:28 · answer #4 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a no contest plea means that your guilt can not be held against you in a civil suit, a guilty plea can
2007-08-29 17:15:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Pleading Nolo Contendre (No contest) is saying "I'm not actually pleading guilty but the evidence is stacked up against me. I'll take the punishment."
2007-08-29 17:35:31 · answer #6 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They more or less mean the same thing. "No contest" just means you're not going to fight it.
2007-08-29 17:17:42 · answer #7 · answered by Vinegar Taster 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
craig says he should not have pled guilty. lol....
2007-08-29 17:14:58 · answer #8 · answered by soperson 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You can't plead 'no contest' to a misdemeanor. Only a traffic infraction.
2007-08-29 17:15:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋