Talk:Alford plea/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Extremely repetitive

This article goes to length in being redundant with the definition of an Alford plea. From the definition section, quoted definitions from sources include:

→ A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court. The plea is commonly used in local and state courts in the United States.

→ When offering an Alford plea, a defendant asserts his innocence but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense.

→ the defendant concedes that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict, but the defendant still refuses to admit guilt.

→ which the defendant adheres to his/her claim of innocence even while allowing that the government has enough evidence to prove his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

→ Under the Alford doctrine, a defendant does not admit guilt but admits that the state has sufficient evidence to find him or her guilty, should the case go to trial.

→ 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.

→ a plea of guilty containing a protestation of innocence".[8] The defendant pleads guilty, but does not have to specifically admit to the guilt itself.[24] The defendant maintains a claim of innocence, but agrees to the entry of a conviction in the charged crime.

From the Court and government use section:

→ In an Alford plea the defendant agrees to plead guilty because he or she realizes that there is little chance to win acquittal because of the strong evidence of guilt

→ In October 2008, the United States Department of Justice defined an Alford plea as: "the defendant maintains his or her innocence with respect to the charge to which he or she offers to plead guilty"

→ a form of a guilty plea in which the defendant asserts innocence but acknowledges on the record that the prosecutor could present enough evidence to prove guilt.

→ Alford Plea: A plea of guilty that may be accepted by a court even where the defendant does not admit guilt. In an Alford plea, defendant has to admit that he has reviewed the state's evidence, a reasonable jury could find him guilty, and he wants to take advantage of a plea offer that has been made.

A vast amount of this article's writing is devoted to just listing what various legal resources all unanimously define to be an Alford plea, which makes it extremely frustrating to read and clouds any nuanced understanding a reader could get from this page.73.109.217.227 (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Questionable POV

The "commentary" section consists exclusively of positive statements about what I understand to be a relatively controversial legal construct. I'm not a legal scholar myself, so I don't know where to find good cites in opposition to the Alford plea, but I think a more knowledgeable wikipedian probably should.

Gazeboist (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

How is it different from nolo contendere?

I would like to see a discussion of how this is different than nolo contendere. They seem the same to me. Axlrosen (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It's easy to miss in the article, but whether or not an Alford plea is actually different from a Nolo Contendere is disputed among legal scholars. Gazeboist (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Error in introduction sentence - list of states that use Alford pleas

The line says that "the alford plea is used in Michigan, Maine, Indiana and New Jersey". However, if you view of the article "list of alford plea usage by state" it states that Michigan, Indiana and New Jersey are in fact the three states where alford pleas are NOT allowed. It is allowed in Maine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.149.158 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Article is wordy to the point of being unreadable

Most of the article consists of defining the concept over and over in different words. Many different people are quoted giving their own definition; all the definitions having the same meaning.

I tried to find any other information in the article, but every section seems to be infected with this definition-mania.

I don't know anything on the topic so I don't know which definitions to keep and which to remove. But I do know that this article is badly in need of an overhaul. InspectorMendel (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)