This is a question for you lawyers or law enthusiasts. What's the difference between someone pleading Guilty vs Not Guilty, meaning, ie, the guy that shot the people in Arizona pleads Not Guilty when they know 100% it was him. Does that means if he pleads Guilty, he gets no trial and just sentenced by a judge? If he pleads Not Guilty, does that mean he has a chance to plead his/her case and maybe takes a chance at maybe convincing just one person they were not in their right mind, etc?
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Guilty vs Not Guilty
- Thread starter justdra
- Start date
Willie Boy
BOO!!! Mwahahahaha!!!!!
The difference between pleas of guilty and not guilty is very simple: a guilty plea is an admission of guilt and acceptance of charges as specified. Whereas a not guilty plea is a claim to be not guilty, there is no admission of guilt.
Here in the US there is the notion of Innocent until proven guilty. This means that even if there actually was clear evidence to prove 100% that a person was guilty, he would still have his day in court and have the chance to refute the evidence. His attorney would take every step possible to have evidence thrown out of court on any technicality available, until there wasn't enough evidence left to convict.
The point is that, no matter what people believe, the evidence is never clear cut, it is always open to interpretation. The attorneys (prosecution and defense) go into court and try to sway enough jurors to look at the evidence from an angle most beneficial to their side.
Here in the US there is the notion of Innocent until proven guilty. This means that even if there actually was clear evidence to prove 100% that a person was guilty, he would still have his day in court and have the chance to refute the evidence. His attorney would take every step possible to have evidence thrown out of court on any technicality available, until there wasn't enough evidence left to convict.
The point is that, no matter what people believe, the evidence is never clear cut, it is always open to interpretation. The attorneys (prosecution and defense) go into court and try to sway enough jurors to look at the evidence from an angle most beneficial to their side.
chrisrobin
JUB 10k Club
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Posts
- 11,539
- Reaction score
- 844
- Points
- 0
...and furthermore, my fellow Americans:
If one pleads guilty and the evidence points to his guilt, he will receive a lesser sentence than if he had pleaded not guilty. Also, the accused can plead guilty to a lesser charge after bargaining with the prosecuting attorney. He can also be granted immunity if he aids the prosecution in apprehending someone else involved in said crime.
If one pleads not guilty however, the jury is left to decide if the accused is guilty or not. That's where the defense attorney comes in. In a criminal case, all the defense needs to do is convince one member of the jury (of 12) that the defendant is not guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. He can impeach a witness, object to certain evidence presented in direct, or perhaps even call for a mistrial.
Aren't you glad you asked? Nobody claimed that our legal system was easy. The main thing to remember (stated well in post #2) is that everything is subject to interpretation - most everything is grey - even eyewitness testimony.
If this sort of thing interests anyone, I would recommend "Twelve Angry Men" starring Henry Fonda. You will get some fascinating insight into our legal system. The other one, a little creepy perhaps, also starring Henry Fonda is Hitchcock's "The Wrong Man." I think both flicks illustrate the difficulty in reaching a verdict.
And then there's the court of appeals... oh, never mind.
If one pleads guilty and the evidence points to his guilt, he will receive a lesser sentence than if he had pleaded not guilty. Also, the accused can plead guilty to a lesser charge after bargaining with the prosecuting attorney. He can also be granted immunity if he aids the prosecution in apprehending someone else involved in said crime.
If one pleads not guilty however, the jury is left to decide if the accused is guilty or not. That's where the defense attorney comes in. In a criminal case, all the defense needs to do is convince one member of the jury (of 12) that the defendant is not guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. He can impeach a witness, object to certain evidence presented in direct, or perhaps even call for a mistrial.
Aren't you glad you asked? Nobody claimed that our legal system was easy. The main thing to remember (stated well in post #2) is that everything is subject to interpretation - most everything is grey - even eyewitness testimony.
If this sort of thing interests anyone, I would recommend "Twelve Angry Men" starring Henry Fonda. You will get some fascinating insight into our legal system. The other one, a little creepy perhaps, also starring Henry Fonda is Hitchcock's "The Wrong Man." I think both flicks illustrate the difficulty in reaching a verdict.
And then there's the court of appeals... oh, never mind.
Willie Boy
BOO!!! Mwahahahaha!!!!!
Very true. Our system of laws has gotten quite...... cumbersome.
Would we be better going back to the law of the gun?
Would we be better going back to the law of the gun?
Thanks Chris and I've seen 12 Angry Men a long time ago (on VHS, lol). I think we all feel the same about the law until we are the one being accused, lol. It's like lawyers, no one likes them until they actually need one.
Willie Boy
BOO!!! Mwahahahaha!!!!!
That is so true.
chrisrobin
JUB 10k Club
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Posts
- 11,539
- Reaction score
- 844
- Points
- 0
If you like courtroom dramas, there's "The Verdict", "Anatomy of a Murder" and "Witness for the Prosecution" (one of my faves).
