this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
14 points (81.8% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

14264 readers
316 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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 2 points 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.

[–] kobra@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No it’s more like:

Go to trial = no plea deal at all = risking harsher sentence OR you know you can prove your innocence

Guilty plea = accepting full responsibility for the crime and accepting the prosecutions deal of (usually) a lesser sentence to skip the trial and go straight to punishment.

Alford plea = same as above but maintaining that you are innocent of the charges but cannot prove that against the prosecutions evidence.

As others have stated, an Alford plea often has to be approved or accepted by the judge or prosecutors so it’s not always an option for everyone.