The ALFORD PLEA – is it JUSTICE?

The ALFORD PLEA – is it JUSTICE?

Most people probably never heard of the Alford Plea, but it is now used in hundreds of cases each year. It allows a defendant to plead guilty without “admitting guilt.”

If this sounds a bit illogical it is because it is illogical. Why do we allow this plea?

It is based on a case in North Carolina (1970) where the defendant Henry Alford was changed with first degree murder. The summary of the evidence is this – he said he was going to kill the person murdered, he took is gun from his home and when he returned he stated he killed the person now dead. His gun was proven to be the murder weapon.

It seems simple enough – guilty. There was other evidence that supported the murder charge.

He was allowed to plead “guilty and not admit any guilt.” He did this to get a lesser sentence and avoid the trial.

First, we should say that over 95% of all criminal and civil cases never go to trial. They are settled through a negotiation by the attorneys. In criminal law there is no way our court system could handle all the criminal cases. There aren’t enough judges, court rooms or prosecutors. It is that simple. So defense attorneys spend 95% of their time arranging plea agreements for their clients.

We are told this is a win-win for everyone involved because justice is served and it saves time and taxpayer money.

I have no problem with this because in most cases the defendant pleads GUILTY to a crime. Many times it is a lesser crime, but he/she is punished.

We all know that in many cases innocent people plead guilty and accept a punishment they don’t deserve to get on with their lives and avoid the outside possibility of going to jail for a long time for something they didn’t do. These defendants are mostly poor and mostly black and Hispanic.

But is it RIGHT or MORAL or even Christian to allow someone to plead guilty without accepting guilt?

How can society and the offended parties, the victim’s relatives and friends, feel justice has been done?

This case went all the way to the US Supreme Court and they said it was okay.

The definition goes like this.

“A guilty plea entered as part of a plea bargain by a criminal defendant who denies committing the crime or who does not actually admit his guilt. In federal courts, such plea may be accepted as long as there is evidence that the defendant is actually guilty. Named after North Carolina v. Alford (1970)”

In some cases Alford is used to avoid the guilty plea being used in a civil case for damages. A person with some resources and assets can plead guilty using Alford and later when sued he can claim he didn’t do it. Since he was allowed to avoid pleading guilty the victim’s family can’t use his admission of guilty to recover damages.

I personally think the Alford Plea STINKS. It is another attempt to game the system. If you want to avoid trial and a longer sentence you should confess and admit your guilt.

What do you think? This just doesn’t seem right to me.

Matthew 22:39-40

39"The second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'

40" On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

Matthew 7:12 GOLDEN RULE -

12 “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

John 14:15 “If ye love me keep my commandments.”