shintao
Take Down ~ Tap Out
- Aug 27, 2010
- 7,230
- 361
- 83
The legal arguments behind where terrorists are tried (military, civil,criminal, international) is a perfect example of the American courts going crazy. BUT I want to discuss a different craziness in the American courts, and "limit" the debate to the two plea-bargains below. There are several pleas by the way, and these two strike me as crazy for an American court to even address. And there are a host of other court accepted acts that are really way out there. So for this debate, The Alford Plea and The Alternative Plea will be addressed. And by the way, these are found in political debate, just as what is occurring with terrorists.
=========
Alford plea (also referred to as Alford guilty plea) and Alford doctrine in the law of the United States is a guilty plea in criminal court, where the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence.Under the Alford plea the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bibas argues, "These procedures may be constitutional and efficient, but they undermine key values served by admissions of guilt in open court. They undermine the procedural values of accuracy and public confidence in accuracy and fairness, by convicting innocent defendants and creating the perception that innocent defendants are being pressured into pleading guilty. More basically, they allow guilty defendants to avoid accepting
responsibility for their wrongs."
Alford plea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alternative pleading permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction.
A pleading in the alternative sets forth multiple claims or defenses either hypothetically or alternatively, such that if one of the claims or defenses are held invalid or insufficient, the other claims or defenses should still have to be answered.
example: "Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog." Normally such arguments would seem to cancel each other on their face, however, legally "even if" and "anyway" clauses need not be argued; mutually exclusive defenses can be advanced without excuses for their relationship to each other. Of course jurists might be influenced by dual defenses such as "my dog was tied up" and "I don't have a dog", but this must be weighed against the fact that defenses may not be allowed if they are introduced too late.
Alternative pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
=========
Alford plea (also referred to as Alford guilty plea) and Alford doctrine in the law of the United States is a guilty plea in criminal court, where the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence.Under the Alford plea the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bibas argues, "These procedures may be constitutional and efficient, but they undermine key values served by admissions of guilt in open court. They undermine the procedural values of accuracy and public confidence in accuracy and fairness, by convicting innocent defendants and creating the perception that innocent defendants are being pressured into pleading guilty. More basically, they allow guilty defendants to avoid accepting
responsibility for their wrongs."
Alford plea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alternative pleading permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction.
A pleading in the alternative sets forth multiple claims or defenses either hypothetically or alternatively, such that if one of the claims or defenses are held invalid or insufficient, the other claims or defenses should still have to be answered.
example: "Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog." Normally such arguments would seem to cancel each other on their face, however, legally "even if" and "anyway" clauses need not be argued; mutually exclusive defenses can be advanced without excuses for their relationship to each other. Of course jurists might be influenced by dual defenses such as "my dog was tied up" and "I don't have a dog", but this must be weighed against the fact that defenses may not be allowed if they are introduced too late.
Alternative pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
