Why do ignoramouses keep saying a person must be guilty because they took a plea?

Question

Most of the time people take a plea to a misdemeanor (for a LESSER Charge) because they dont want to spend a year traveling back and forth to court spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer and lost wages.
Some people even know the dirty tricks that prosecutor and judges use to get a conviction and sentence regardless of what the jury decides (jury nulification). Defense lawyers want it overwith quickly because felonies is where the real money is, and theyre ussually handling 3, 4 or more cases at the same time. How do you expect a single individual go up against the power of the DA office with their million dollar budget and vested interest in seeing you lose and have a chance?

The appeals process is a joke. Its ten times more complicated and cost 10 times as much and chances of winning are so slim. Look at the case of the man on death row who's dna didnt match the dna they had as evidence and they still tried to prevent his appeal just from being heard. Im sick of people who dont know the judicial process making their dumb comments

Guilt is not relative BR. Guilty means you did it. Where did you get your law degree Hillary? most people is not All people. Taking a plea does not always mean guilt like I already explained. Its called extortion.

Answer 1

They are saying this because they are ignoramuses, I would also call them cretins. I agree with your statement 100%. American justice system and espesially criminal justice system are so screwed and in great need of reform from A to Z. There are more police, procecutors, criminal courts judges, sheriffs and others then in any other country in the world. All of them need to be kept busy and to justify their paycheks. So that is why prosecutors do not really care wheather you innocent or guilty. And therefore if they feel that they have a weak case they usually offer a plea bargains. And accordingly majority of accused people do take a plea bargain because they have no choice. But until all those ignoramouses and cretins will taste themselves all this corrupt and unfair ciminal justice machine on their own skin, they will keep keep saying a person must be guilty because they took a plea.

Answer 2

jury nullification is the jury's rights to find someone not guilty if they disagree with the laws. For instance, someone was arrested for smoking pot, and the jury did not think it should be against the law, they can find him not guilty. That is called jury nullification. This is a constitutional right the jury has, and it is also something a public official is forbidden to inform the jury they have the right to do.


That being said, the charge of disorderly conduct is a completely different charge than the initial one. If he argued with the police officer, that could be construed as disorderly conduct. So even IF (big if) he did not do what the cop said he did, he may have been guilty of disorderly conduct.

Either the cop is lying, or larry craig is lying. I don't put it past a congressman to be a sexual deviant, and I don't put it past a cop to take a bribe to set up a politician.

Answer 3

Because people who take the plea typically are attempting to avoid a worse punishment for what they did. Take the case of a person charged with drunk driving which can carry some serious penalties. If they weren't drinking then the defendant will say "screw it. I'm not taking the heat for something I didn't do" and go to court. If he had however been drinking a bit and can get it plead out to reckless driving, a lesser charge then he's that much better off. He knows he did something wrong. Doing this allows him to take the punishment but avoid the heat of a DUI on the record.

Answer 4

It's kind of ironic in this case because it was those tough-on-crime Republicans who fought for 30 years to make it harder for those accused of crimes to defend themselves.

Look, the guy pled guilty and now says he wasn't guilty. Either he was lying then or he's lying now. If he was a Democrat don't you think the right-wing press would be condemning him?

Then he says he pled guilty because of the investigation his hometown newspaper was doing. When all else fails, blame the media. Think he thought the matter would just be swept under the rug if he pled guilty

He has the option now of getting a lawyer to petition a judge to set aside his guilty plea so they case can start over from scratch. According to the 'expert' I heard on the radio, there's about a 10% chance of him being able to do this. You'd think a guy whose job it was to make laws would at least have some idea what the law was in this kind of case.

Answer 5

Regardless of why someone pleads guilty -- once they have formally entered a guilty plea, as a matter of law (which any legislator should understand) they are admitting they are guilty.

And yes, there are many reasons to enter a guilty plea -- such as the procedural tactics you mention.

But you are incorrect that a judge can override a jury finding of not guilty -- that's not allowed in the US. Once a jury finds someone not guilty -- whether on the merits or by jury nullification, that's it -- case closed.

As for what defense attorneys do, often you are correct -- but your assumptions are not true in every case -- and cannot be generalized as an excuse for every guilty plea.

Answer 6

Hoss I've been around the world several times and am a lot older than you and I'll tell you right now: I wouldn't take a plea for anything that I wasn't guilty of. If a person does they're an absolute idiot. I realize people wind up in jail who are innocent, however it's a lot rarer than you seem to believe. I believe in the goodness of the U.S. and feel that, in the long run, right will prevail.

Answer 7

What's the question?

Most of the people who plead guilty do it because the evidence against them is strong enough to prove their guilt, but they plead to a lesser charge. How does that make them not guilty?

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Answer 8

Because they usually aren't talking about Senators. He should have had legal council. It's his reputation and he did plead guilty so it would go away. Not very smart.

Answer 9

There should be greater to this tale. the place grow to be your buddy's lawyer while he grow to be signing a fact he did no longer understand? it could be as much as the decide, no longer the DA, to ascertain no remember if the signed fact grow to be admissible or no longer. If this lawyer knew that your buddy could no longer understand the fact he signed and nonetheless counseled him to plead in charge, your buddy could attempt to charm on the grounds of insufficient protection.

Answer 10

Spare us. The man pleaded GUILTY. You can put any spin on it you want but I'd bet that if it were a dem, you'd consider him guilty.