Do you think that no contest plea is worthless?

[Profit5500]

If I were in court and had to answer for a crime that I had committed in front of a judge with a plea I would not see the point in no contest at first. I had researched and found out the difference between the guilty verdict and no contest plea. Guilty plea is obvious you are basically in trouble and you admitted or a jury found you were at fault for the crime. No contest plea is basically you being found guilty by the court but people cannot come back and sue you for anything else that they try to find on you. Should we just get rid of the no contest or should we just get rid of the guilty verdict and keep the no contest verdict instead.

 

[primalclaws1974]

If I were in court and had to answer for a crime that I had committed in front of a judge with a plea I would not see the point in no contest at first. I had researched and found out the difference between the guilty verdict and no contest plea. Guilty plea is obvious you are basically in trouble and you admitted or a jury found you were at fault for the crime. No contest plea is basically you being found guilty by the court but people cannot come back and sue you for anything else that they try to find on you. Should we just get rid of the no contest or should we just get rid of the guilty verdict and keep the no contest verdict instead.

If what you are saying is true, why don't all people plead "no contest"? I don't think it is that cut and dry. There must be more to it. I don't think they could anyway, because that would be considered double jeopardy. But if they couldn't come at them with a crime, many people come after the defendant in a civil suit anyway.

 

[Profit5500]

If what you are saying is true, why don't all people plead "no contest"? I don't think it is that cut and dry. There must be more to it. I don't think they could anyway, because that would be considered double jeopardy. But if they couldn't come at them with a crime, many people come after the defendant in a civil suit anyway.

That is the main thing with the civil suit anyway is people coming in to sue for something. I just learned about the no contest plea when I did some research. I just believe that the no contest plea is another way for the court systems to suck money out of you.

 

[LitoLawless]

I don't think that either should be eliminated. I think there are some things that people are obviously guilty for that they should have no choice to plead guilty to. I also think that if people really feel like they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they should be able to plead no contest. Eliminating either or is making an already unfair justice system a little more unfair.

 

[bala]

If you plead guilty, and explain that you just absent mindedly did it,the judge might let you off with a fine,but if you have a track record,it only worsens from there.
If you ask me..you may not want to plead guilty and never talk to the prosecution because their job is to find if you are guilty. If you really made a mistake and you've never been in trouble, the judge will probably believe you and find you not guilty. If you plead guilty you will have a criminal record that says you are a thief for years if not forever.

 

[missbishi]

If you really made a mistake and you've never been in trouble, the judge will probably believe you and find you not guilty. If you plead guilty you will have a criminal record that says you are a thief for years if not forever.

Sadly, things don't always happen like this. It is equally possible that the judge will find you guilty and impose a harsher punishment as he thinks you are refusing to take responsibility for what you have done. Here in the UK, we just plead "guilty" or "not guilty" and the judge takes any mitigating factors into account when he is passing sentence.

 

[primalclaws1974]

If I were in court and had to answer for a crime that I had committed in front of a judge with a plea I would not see the point in no contest at first. I had researched and found out the difference between the guilty verdict and no contest plea. Guilty plea is obvious you are basically in trouble and you admitted or a jury found you were at fault for the crime. No contest plea is basically you being found guilty by the court but people cannot come back and sue you for anything else that they try to find on you. Should we just get rid of the no contest or should we just get rid of the guilty verdict and keep the no contest verdict instead.

"No contest" to me is just as bad as "I plead the 5th". It is still saying you are guilty, it is just trying to slink around it, and not take full responsibility. Everyone knows that what you are really doing is not accepting responsibility for your crimes, and are hoping to get a lesser verdict by refusing to admit what you did. It really is the coward's way out.

 

[Profit5500]

"No contest" to me is just as bad as "I plead the 5th". It is still saying you are guilty, it is just trying to slink around it, and not take full responsibility. Everyone knows that what you are really doing is not accepting responsibility for your crimes, and are hoping to get a lesser verdict by refusing to admit what you did. It really is the coward's way out.

I feel for the people who are wrongfully convicted and had no way getting out. If you do plead no contest I do agree it is the same as guilty. I just wonder who made the law to where they ask you for your plea and you wind up getting accused anyway.

 

[Shimus]

I don't think that either should be eliminated. I think there are some things that people are obviously guilty for that they should have no choice to plead guilty to. I also think that if people really feel like they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they should be able to plead no contest. Eliminating either or is making an already unfair justice system a little more unfair.

I was going to type almost the same exact sentence. Not only should both not be eliminated, it would make an unfair system (Guilty until Proven Innocent, don't tell me otherwise!) even that more unfair. Sometimes people genuinely do deserve the benefit of the doubt.

As to the original post though I feel you should be able to plead whatever whenever you want. Freedom of speech. The Jury then has the right to prosecute you however THEY see fit. That's the beauty of the system. Regardless of lying or trying to get out of potentially damning situations with a lesser plea, the Judge and Jury still have a lot of say. And sometimes those minds are influenced by what they hear, read, or judge. They're supposed to be unbiased. But they're not. Taking away these pleas would only help formulate their minds even faster.

 

[partlysunny]

That is the main thing with the civil suit anyway is people coming in to sue for something. I just learned about the no contest plea when I did some research. I just believe that the no contest plea is another way for the court systems to suck money out of you.

I don't think that the no contest plea is a way for the court to "suck money out of you." I think it's a way to protect yourself later. You're still getting the same verdict as if you were guilty, but it's giving you the freedom of silence. I think that pleading "no contest" is just part of an American democracy, though it may not seem fair.

 

[shilpa123]

I do not think it is completely worthless. I believe each of them have their own advantages. I believe the system as a whole some kind of advantages .