Alford Plea allows the defendants to maintain their innocence. They say they have not committed a crime, but admit that the state has enough evidence to prove their guilt, while formally pleading guilty. According to Robertson (2011), as new DNA evidence surfaced in the West Memphis Three case that the prosecution could not link to the perpetrators, the court ruled that the three could present new evidence to establish their innocence. Acknowledgment of the facts that gave rise to the charge is an essential element, without which the court will not accept this admission. Since the defendants used Alford Plea and did not admit their guilt, and the court did not have sufficient evidence, they were released.
The possibility of a commutation of the sentence is the primary motivation of the accused to plead guilty to a crime. In addition, Alford Plea encourages defendants and their lawyers to refrain from perjury in court. Suppose defendants are innocent but still choose a plea bargain for security reasons. In that case, their lawyers are no longer faced with an ethical dilemma about whether they should allow their innocent clients to defend what they did not commit. Thus, while Alford Plea may appear positive at first glance, this argument is often overused or leads to negative results in practice.
Prosecutors often use Alford Plea to cover up misconduct. Moreover, Alford Plea does not allow defendants to sue for unlawful imprisonment and other forms of misconduct that perpetuate this type of misconduct. These pleas not only harm the justice system as a whole, but it is also important to remember the devastating consequences of this request for victims and their families. Allowing an accused, who claims to be innocent, to plead guilty, leaves these cases closed. Closing these cases without investigation means that the actual perpetrator of these crimes often goes unpunished. Thus, the adoption of Alford Plea has many pitfalls, so this process is ambiguous and requires special attention and finding the truth.
Replies
- It can be concluded that the Alford Plea problem is ambiguous. It raises many ethical and legal questions. In such cases, it seems that the perpetrators are not sufficiently punished. But the other thing is also true – for many accused, Alford Plea is an acceptable option to avoid some repressive punishments.
- The implications for the defendants of adopting the Alford Plea are incredibly heterogeneous. On the one hand, in some cases, this allows to avoid a jury penalty or receive other benefits, such as a probationary period instead of imprisonment. On the other hand, it raises many problems, for example, the crisis of mass confinement, one of the biggest problems of the US criminal justice system in the last few decades.
Reference
Robertson, C. (2011). Deal frees ‘West Memphis Three’ in Arkansas.The New York Times.