Another way of pleading?

[shootist]

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2018/02/26/iowa-mom-who-left-kids-alone-during-trip-germany-enters-plea/372826002/

A Johnston woman who left her four kids home alone while she went on a trip to Germany last year has entered a plea to some of the charges against her.
Erin Lee Macke, 31, entered an Alford plea of guilty to four counts of child endangerment Monday in Polk County District Court. In an Alford plea, the defendant does not admit guilt, but acknowledges that prosecutors likely have enough evidence to secure a conviction at trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

Just sharing this because I find it interesting. Feel free to comment on both case and principle.

[atticus]

Surely in England & Wales the Court would direct that a plea be entered of not guilty.

The USA is another country. They do things differently there.

I am interested by the wide range of newspapers that you read!

[Hairyloon]

Surely in England & Wales the Court would direct that a plea be entered of not guilty.

Would they?
Surely if there is proof to the required standard then they are guilty.
Are we back on the question of morals? Does the plea amount to admitting that they have transgressed the law, but denying that they have done wrong?

[atticus]

Yes the Court would direct a plea of not guilty: D has not admitted guilt.

Proof comes during trial, after plea. Prosecution cases that look strong pre-trial have been known to fail.

[dls]

A UK court would enter a plea of not guilty for a defenant who fails t enter an unequiocal guilty plea.

The 'no contest' of nolo contendere plea is S law.

It is common for a defendant to say that he has committed an offence, but the lawyer's advice is to plead not guilty where the prosecution evidence is insufficient to establish the case. In such a matter the defendant lawyer is free to challenge the evidence properly, but not ever going so far as to assert innocence.

An example would be a where a crime was not in fact witnessed, but a prosecution witness pretends that he saw the events in order to achieve 'justice'. The defendant's lawyer might, for example, have evidence that the witness was elsewhere.

[shootist]

It does seem to throw a new light on the principle or reasonable doubt. Pleading G or NG might not make much of a difference if conviction gets you a sentence of life imprisonment. Go NG and you face execution might make it eminently reasonable to admit there is sufficient evidence to convict you but you didn't do it. Firstly it will allow a continued denial in an appeal, and secondly, you get the chance to appeal. I know that in the US the appeals process can last for decades, but it must be a comfort to know that there isn't a gas chamber waiting at the end of the process.

Having said that, I'm reminded of at least two psychopaths who used the system to continue manipulating the people they encountered right up to the execution. Gary Gilmore and Ted Bundy. Gary Gilmore in particular used the author Norman Mailer to portray his excuse for a life to tug at the heartstrings of the gullible.

[atticus]

At least Gary Gilmore inspired an early punk song.

[gid]

The summary judgement system in the UK can have similar effects. e.g. Would you accept a summary judgement for a pollution offence where the fine is limited to 40k or choose to fight it in court where the fine is unlimited?

[shootist]

At least Gary Gilmore inspired an early punk song.

In his eyes maybe.