Pleading guilty to a crime you did not commit

[CuriousInIL]

I was thinking about a situation that occurred in the TV show Prison Break and it leads me to these questions:

Would you ever plead guilty to a crime that you did not commit?

In the show, one character does so and accepts a sentence of 25 years because his attorney counsels him that certain facts create a high probability of a conviction and death sentence even though he did not commit the crime.

Would you ever accept such a plea? If so, why? If not, why not? Is pleading guilty to such a crime–a statement under oath that you are guilty–sinful because it is not true?

 

[The_Augustinian]

I would not accept such a plea bargain, because that would be unhonorable. Even if I were executed unjustly, it would be better than lying about it, and I’m going to die sooner or later at any rate.

On the other hand, I don’t have a wife and kids to take care of. Perhaps if that’s put into consideration circumstances might change? I’m not sure.

 

[LilyM]

Difficult … certainly I know of the example of St Joan of Arc, who when threatened with being executed for heresy initially did plead guilty to save her life, but was chastised by St Michael and St Margaret for doing so, and eventually recanted and was burned at the stake.

But then we’re talking falsely agreeing that one is a heretic in her case.

 

[Pug]

Perhaps you have the option of “no contest” as a plea. If I would have to lie, and confess and tell the court about how I did it, then I would not. However, if “guilty” as a plea entailed a legal treatment, and not an actual statement of guilt, then I might. It depends on what it means in my state.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Perhaps you have the option of “no contest” as a plea. If I would have to lie, and confess and tell the court about how I did it, then I would not. However, if “guilty” as a plea entailed a legal treatment, and not an actual statement of guilt, then I might. It depends on what it means in my state.

Can’t you plead “no contest”, in that case…meaning, you’re not willing to say that you’re guilty, but you’re also not willing to hazard the outcome of a court trial, all the same?

I had always thought that was what the “no contest” plea was for. A clarification from a member of the bar who’s actually worked for a prosecutor would be much appreciated.

 

[Trevelyan]

However, if “guilty” as a plea entailed a legal treatment, and not an actual statement of guilt, then I might. It depends on what it means in my state.

Yes, a guilty plea can be seen as a legal technicality, like not guilty, which doesn’t actually mean innocent. But I still wouldn’t be inclined to ‘lie’ all the same, unless I had serious reasons to do so.

 

[AnonymousOne]

Many years ago, my uncle, who was a very good man, was accused of a crime he did not commit. He pleaded “no contest” to avoid going to jail so that he could continue to support his wife and children. It cost him dearly, though. He lost his job with the government and spent the next 25 years working in jobs that were well below his education level, and his family suffered, too.

About 10 years ago he told me how he had actually hated the men who set him up, and as he drove his truck, he would dwell on the injustice to the point where it was eating him up. But over time God was able to break through and soften his heart so that he could forgive them. He died a very holy and painful death from cancer several years ago, and I’m convinced he’s now enjoying the Beatific Vision.

 

[porriwiggle]

I was thinking about a situation that occurred in the TV show Prison Break and it leads me to these questions:

Would you ever plead guilty to a crime that you did not commit?

In the show, one character does so and accepts a sentence of 25 years because his attorney counsels him that certain facts create a high probability of a conviction and death sentence even though he did not commit the crime.

Would you ever accept such a plea? If so, why? If not, why not? Is pleading guilty to such a crime–a statement under oath that you are guilty–sinful because it is not true?

If you say you are guilty and you aren’t it is a lie and it is a sin to lie. If you allow someone to plead on your behalf you are surely lying by omission because you are allowing others to believe a lie about you - not misinforation but a deliberate lie.

I cannot concieve any situation where I could accept that plea. I think I would rather be found guity wrongfully that admit to having done something I had not done.

I say I think because unless it actually happens to us we cannot predict exactly how we would react in any situation, but I would want not to accept it.

 

[Pug]

I had always thought that was what the “no contest” plea was for.

I was hesitant in my post about it because I thought this varied by state. I remember being told that you could only plead “no contest” in some states. But I have no legal training.

 

[wcknight]

Interesting, my son has a friend who is a public defender and she has this situation all the time. She defends the poor and indigent on misdemeanors. Many times they are so afraid of the system that they plead guilty to charges even though they are innocent and have a very good case to win in court.

 

[Durendin]

Tough one, but I’d default to truth if the choice was twenty five years or the death penalty. I’d rather take the injection than walk out of jail having spent my life suffering for a lie.

Sounds noble, but talk is cheap. Frankly, to me the sound of twenty five years in jail for something I didn’t do is worse than death and I doubt I’d be strong enough to carry it. I fear I would take my own life in which case it’s better to be martyred for the truth and trust in Christ.

 

[a_priori]

Suffering for crimes one didn’t commit? Isn’t that what Christ did?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Suffering for crimes one didn’t commit? Isn’t that what Christ did?

**No. He was put to death for committing a crime which he had not committed - which was unjust to Him. **​

**That He suffered in our place as our Kinsman-Redeemer, Substitute, Saviour, Expiation, Propitiation, & Scapegoat, was at once just & unjust: **

• **just, because He had voluntarily assumed the entirety of our sins, as we had no way of making our peace with God. This is a reality known to God alone, unless He reveals it, as in fact He has; **
• unjust, because the good of His doing so on our behalf was brought about by means which were sinful. Those means are human acts, & human acts can be known of within time & space, i.e., in history
  **- so that the Passion can be seen as a thing which came about because God overruled the unjust & sinful intentions of men, to bring about the good & holy result of vindicating His justice: one thing (the Crucifixion of Jesus) is brought about by two different causes - human activity, & God’s own activity. They are not concurrent, like two streams contributing to a river; the action of God is more like the sun, which by its heat makes the flowing of steams, & much more on earth, both possible & actual. **

**The theological reality of God’s vindication of His Righteousness & His Love, is made known in the historical reality of the Crucifixion; to the Crucifixion, Pilate & Caiaphas are as really contributors, in their creaturely manner, as God: but in a different way from God, both morally, and ontologically. He is the Righteous Creator - they are unrighteous, & ****creatures. So the moral evaluation of their acts, is not necessarily the same as the moral evaluation of God’s act. So there is no unfairness here - His ability to act, is what makes their human ability to act both possible & real: they were not compelled to do as they did. Least of all is there any suggestion that, because God is supremely powerful, He can do what would be a crime if a man did it. God’s acts are righteous, because He is Righteous - not because He is Almighty. **

**Man lives within history; it’s his element. At the same time, it imposes certain limits on what he can know about God - a bit as a fish can live in a pond, but for that reason, cannot fly a jet fighter. Man has no access from history, to God; that is why revelation is necessary; we could not know the meaning of a particular event as God sees it otherwise. God has no need of theology - we do, because we have no access to God that He does not give us: the theology of the Crucifixion, gives us access to some of the truth about the Crucifixion, which is something we need to know something about, in order to have some sort of “appreciation” of the God Whom we serve. **

This lack of access from history to God unless God should give it, is why Jesus is just another crucified Jew from one POV - & the Crucified Lord of Glory, from a Christian POV. The Christian POV includes the ability to see how the unbeliever can, on his reckoning, think of Jesus as just another crucified Jew; while enabling the Christian to go beyond the unbeliever’s POV, & see the significance of Jesus more fully than an unbeliever can; though only the Father knows Jesus fully & infinitely, as He really is. ##

 

[Victorious]

I was hesitant in my post about it because I thought this varied by state. I remember being told that you could only plead “no contest” in some states. But I have no legal training.

“No contest” is not available in all states. It is not available in my state. What is available is an Alford plea. An Alford plea (from North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)) is a plea of guilty without an admission of guilt. Usually, when you plead guilty, the court accepts your plea based on your admission of guilt. But with an Alford plea, the prosecutor tells the court the evidence that would have been offered at trial against the accused, and then the court rules on whether or not a jury could reasonably convict based on that evidence. If the state’s evidence could support a conviction, then the judge accepts the plea.

The reason for making an Alford plea is that it allows you to plead guilty while maintaining your innocence, as the best available alternative among lousy choices – which sometimes it is.

 

[Pug]

The reason for making an Alford plea is that it allows you to plead guilty while maintaining your innocence, as the best available alternative among lousy choices – which sometimes it is.

Clearly it is a good alternative if you fear being sued in a later civil case. It won’t help if you have plead guilty. They can use that against you.

 

[Ladylost5]

I plead guilty to a crime I did not commit. I plead to assault 2 and assault 3. I was facing assault 1. My lawyer told me that I could goto jail for 40 years. I believed him. It was my word against the police. My attorney did not do the proper investigation by questioning witnesses and obtaining EMS reports. He made his decision on hersay from the police. He instructed me and my family that this was in my best intrest. Also he charged $30,000 for this plea bargin. His father died during the proceedings and I feel this affected his interest in persuing my case. He had personal affairs to attend too. I found out latter that the EMS report would prove police lied. My life is ruined. I cannot get a job. I am a nurse and no one will hire a felon. Please pray for me. I am lost.

 

[Pug]

I plead guilty to a crime I did not commit. I plead to assault 2 and assault 3. I was facing assault 1. My lawyer told me that I could goto jail for 40 years. I believed him. It was my word against the police. My attorney did not do the proper investigation by questioning witnesses and obtaining EMS reports. He made his decision on hersay from the police. He instructed me and my family that this was in my best intrest. Also he charged $30,000 for this plea bargin. His father died during the proceedings and I feel this affected his interest in persuing my case. He had personal affairs to attend too. I found out latter that the EMS report would prove police lied. My life is ruined. I cannot get a job. I am a nurse and no one will hire a felon. Please pray for me. I am lost.

I will pray for you. Welcome to the forums here.

 

[Ladylost5]

Thank-you I need the grace that comes from prayers

 

[Ponyguy]

I was thinking about a situation that occurred in the TV show Prison Break and it leads me to these questions:

Would you ever plead guilty to a crime that you did not commit?

In the show, one character does so and accepts a sentence of 25 years because his attorney counsels him that certain facts create a high probability of a conviction and death sentence even though he did not commit the crime.

Would you ever accept such a plea? If so, why? If not, why not? Is pleading guilty to such a crime–a statement under oath that you are guilty–sinful because it is not true?

Ladylost, my prayers and sympathy are with you… have you considered further legal pursuits to perhaps expunge your criminal stuff from the records?

This question of a guilty plea while knowing your innocence has bothered me… a lot… for several years now. My situation was nowhere near as serious as assault or any other felonious crimes, but it has caused me a lot of personal angst.

On Easter Sunday afternoon, about 10 or 12 years ago, I was driving to the grocery store with my family in the car along with me. A police car passed me going the opposite direction, turned around quickly and drove up behind me and pulled me over. He said that he had clocked me driving 10 MPH over the speed limit according to his moving radar machine. I know for certain that I was NOT, because in that area, police are known to actively dispense speeding tickets, so I was driving the limit with my cruise control turned on. Regardless, the officer would hear none of it, and wrote me a citation for speeding.

Time came to settle up with the county court and I was given the option of confessing (in writing) to my alleged offense and paying the $150 fine, or taking my chances with the judge’s decision and paying the fine in addition to court costs (usually more than $300). The clerk of the court said that the judge had never determined an alleged traffic offender to be “innocent” or even “not guilty.” I had typed up a piece of paper stating that I was willing to pay the fine simply because it was the less expensive option, but I could not in good conscience sign my name to a statement admitting to guilt when I knew I was not guilty. We went around in circles for a while until I was told to pay the fine or face a charge of contempt.

Reluctantly, I paid the fine, but the entire situation has bothered me since then… I was essentially bullied into either perjuring myself or missing a house payment. Perhaps someone with a legal background could shed some light here…

 

[hazcompat]

I plead guilty to a crime I did not commit. I plead to assault 2 and assault 3. I was facing assault 1. My lawyer told me that I could goto jail for 40 years. I believed him. It was my word against the police. My attorney did not do the proper investigation by questioning witnesses and obtaining EMS reports. He made his decision on hersay from the police. He instructed me and my family that this was in my best intrest. Also he charged $30,000 for this plea bargin. His father died during the proceedings and I feel this affected his interest in persuing my case. He had personal affairs to attend too. I found out latter that the EMS report would prove police lied. My life is ruined. I cannot get a job. I am a nurse and no one will hire a felon. Please pray for me. I am lost.

Thou shall not do evil thar good may result.

see friends of the cross by st. louis de monfort.

welcome to the club.

peace