• kobra@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    When a person enters an Alford plea, they maintain their innocence but acknowledge that the prosecution has enough evidence to likely convict them if the case went to trial. In contrast, a guilty plea is an outright admission of guilt.

    An Alford plea allows a defendant to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence at trial while not admitting to the crime itself.

    In essence, an Alford plea is about accepting the legal consequences without admitting personal guilt.

    • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      So my understanding is

      • Guilty plea = “I’m guilty” = Harsh punishment
      • Alford plea = “I’m innocent” = Mild punishment

      Then why doesn’t everyone take the Alford plea, instead?

      • nogooduser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think that from a legal point of view there is no difference between the two. If you do an Alford plea then you still can’t appeal because you pleaded guilty.

        The harsh and mild sentence part is a negotiation. The prosecution is interested in getting a plea deal because it saves time and resources and the defendant is interested in getting a lighter sentence if they’re pretty confident that they’ll be convicted anyway.

    • Don_Dickle@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Ok dumb question then why does anyone take an alford plea? Because most people don’t have an understanding of law?

      • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m no expert but I believe people usually take the Alford plea when they are going to be found guilty no matter what and want to at least try to get a lesser sentence

      • kobra@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        They take an Alford plea to avoid a harsher sentence that could come at trial and/or they’re 1000% sure they’re innocent but can’t prove it (yet).

      • psmgx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        You’re driving home in the rain. A deer jumps out and you managed to hit the brakes but still hit it, albeit having slow down to 10km or less. Slow enough that the deer is able to get up and runaway, but still enough to dent your car and crack a windshield. Any blood or hair gets washed away in the rain. Car runs well enough to get you home.

        10 min behind you there is a hit and run and pedestrian is killed by a vehicle that drives off. No camera footage, no solid proof of who did it.

        Eventually you come to a big intersection where there is a camera and it records your dented, cracked car rolling through 20-30 min after they estimate the pedestrian got hit. Ruh roh.

        So you get charged with hit and run and manslaughter. There isn’t a ton of ways to prove it’s not you, even though it’s clearly not. So your options are plead Guilty and get fucked, or roll the dice with Not Guilty, probably lose, and get fucked extra hard.

        Alfred plea is basically hey I can’t prove it but I also won’t admit guilt. Prosecutors know they can’t prove, specifically, it’s you, but also can’t rule you out, so people cut a deal.