2007-11-07 08:39:17 · 14 answers · asked by James J 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Because they think the prosecution can't PROVE their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....
2007-11-07 08:42:17 · answer #1 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The three people in front of me are all correct. If you plead guilty, the case is closed quickly and you receive the punishment for the wrong you admit to doing. If you plead not guilty, then you have a chance to cut a deal with the prosecutor for something less than the guilty plea would have given. You also have the possibility of being acquitted if the prosecution can't make their case. If we were all truly honest we would admit to our mistakes and there would be no need for lawyers. I don't see that happening any time soon. It would be our wish in an ideal society for everybody to take full responsibility for their own actions. Until then, we will continue to play the legal game for what it is, minimizing our responsibility and trying to foist it off onto somebody else. Not perfect, not even right, but it is what it is and that is what we have to work with.
2007-11-07 16:50:09 · answer #2 · answered by rac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think about that a lot. We could save a lot of money and time if people just admitted they were guilty. The guilty party feels they had a reason to commit the crime and pleading innocent is a way to explain what happened. It certainly makes a lot of money for the lawyers.
2007-11-07 17:18:50 · answer #3 · answered by phlada64 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well...
1. No one wants to go to prison (they hope to beat the charges).
2. You don't have to plead guilty (and technically shouldn't ).
a. the fifth amendment protects you form self- incrimination.
b. you are entitled to the "best defence possible" in your trial.
3. Sometime "guilt" has nothing to do with whether or not your did the act, but rather in "why" you did it. For example, self-defense, a crime of passion, accidental, insane, etc.
4. Some times it is unclear if a crime was commited (if the definition or description could be disputed and no president has ben set in that instance)
2007-11-07 16:48:51 · answer #4 · answered by aristotle_inabottle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes their lawyers tell them to plead guilty because it gives the attorney more time to build a better and stronger case of defense. Other times its seems, from newspaper readings, that having a trial with jury may seem better, for sympathy reasons.
2007-11-07 17:36:39 · answer #5 · answered by kristalintner 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you plead guilty you are waiving your right to trail, and other important rights. Most judges will advise a person to plead not guilty to make sure that they are given a fair trial.
2007-11-07 16:46:44 · answer #6 · answered by ALFimzadi 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because they don't want to pay for their crimes.
Because they feel they have a justifiable excuse for their crime (or at least think they do).
Because just because you may know you are guilty does not mean you will be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
Because it is their right to do so.
2007-11-07 17:14:51 · answer #7 · answered by elysialaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof is not theirs but it is of the opposing party.They plead not guilty, then the opposition has to prove that they are guilty.
2007-11-07 16:54:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because sometimes they get off. Look at what happened to O.J. You kill two people, plead not guilty and get off.
2007-11-07 16:42:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
IT goes to a Jury trial and your chances are better with a lot rather than just a judge!
2007-11-07 16:45:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋