2007-12-10 15:27:12 · 4 answers · asked by j1mo7 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Rickinno is correct.
2007-12-10 15:44:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called "unclear on the concept" if you plead "guilty" when you are actually "not guilty" and such a plea should not be accepted in any court, as it is fraud. Perhaps what you mean is that the defendant pleads "nolo contendere", which happens when there is not enough evidence (or willpower) to convict, but the defendant doesn't care to take the risk of a severe sentence.
2007-12-10 15:36:09 · answer #2 · answered by Nuff Sed 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's called an "Alford" plea from the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for a defendant to plead guilty to a criminal charge to accept a plea bargain deal, or a lesser sentence, while still asserting their actual innocence.
The link below is to an article about the case, "North Carolina vs. Alford".
Alford was charged with Capital murder, and agreed to plead guilty to 2nd Degree murder to avoid the death penalty, because his lawyer told him he would 'probably' lose at trial if he pled not guilty, and would then be executed.
He pled to the 2nd degree murder, while still asserting that he was actually innocent, but was pleading guilty so as not to risk being executed.
Richard
2007-12-10 15:41:51 · answer #3 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No contest. "Nolo Contendere" And they actually are neither pleading guilty or maintaining their innocence. They are just saying "Whatever. I'll take the punishment but I'm not going to say whether I did it or not."
2007-12-10 15:32:35 · answer #4 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋