Why allow people to change their plea on the court date?
Discussion
Prompted by the how can she plead not guilty thread -
I can understand people pleading not guilty at the time of the offence, in the heat of stupidity (see every police camera action where the offender is caught red handed then says I haven't done anything), so changing a plea needs to be allowed, but suppose it was something like no changes from say two weeks after the initial plea. What's the downside?
As a layman, it seems like it would cut out a huge amount of work, reduce court waste, hasten convictions and most importantly make it so the plea was actually based on the person's belief of their guilt, rather than their gambling on whether the justice system has managed to tie its shoelaces correctly on any given day.
In the scenario on the other thread, rather than a drunk driver getting away with it because they gambled on the prosecution making a mistake and winning, they would have gone 'oh bugger, they're going to have a witness and a damning blood test, plus yknow I was actually drunk', they would have plead guilty and the case would still have stood on the basis of the confession regardless of the blood test screwup.
So.. what's the downside? What if people had to make their plea without knowing every detail of the evidence against them?
I can understand people pleading not guilty at the time of the offence, in the heat of stupidity (see every police camera action where the offender is caught red handed then says I haven't done anything), so changing a plea needs to be allowed, but suppose it was something like no changes from say two weeks after the initial plea. What's the downside?
As a layman, it seems like it would cut out a huge amount of work, reduce court waste, hasten convictions and most importantly make it so the plea was actually based on the person's belief of their guilt, rather than their gambling on whether the justice system has managed to tie its shoelaces correctly on any given day.
In the scenario on the other thread, rather than a drunk driver getting away with it because they gambled on the prosecution making a mistake and winning, they would have gone 'oh bugger, they're going to have a witness and a damning blood test, plus yknow I was actually drunk', they would have plead guilty and the case would still have stood on the basis of the confession regardless of the blood test screwup.
So.. what's the downside? What if people had to make their plea without knowing every detail of the evidence against them?
I'm OP on the other thread. You raise some interesting points.
My take from this case and other personal experiences is that most of the people who end up in court are guilty and know they are guilty. Sadly the criminal justice system is heavily weghted in favour of the criminals. Personally I think defence lawyers are the lowest of the low, how they live with the fact that their job is to get people, who they know are guilty, off is beyond me. I hope there is a special place in hell form them, along with drink drivers, obviously!
There were two other winesses waiting in the same room as me on Friday, as it transpied they were giving evidence against a flasher. He had however changed his plea to guilty at 4.45pm on Thurdsay but nobody had been able to contact the witnesses, so they had both turned up at court, only to be told, after a couple of hours, that they could go home. Again a huge waste of time for all involved, but at least they got a conviction!
My take from this case and other personal experiences is that most of the people who end up in court are guilty and know they are guilty. Sadly the criminal justice system is heavily weghted in favour of the criminals. Personally I think defence lawyers are the lowest of the low, how they live with the fact that their job is to get people, who they know are guilty, off is beyond me. I hope there is a special place in hell form them, along with drink drivers, obviously!
There were two other winesses waiting in the same room as me on Friday, as it transpied they were giving evidence against a flasher. He had however changed his plea to guilty at 4.45pm on Thurdsay but nobody had been able to contact the witnesses, so they had both turned up at court, only to be told, after a couple of hours, that they could go home. Again a huge waste of time for all involved, but at least they got a conviction!
Enut said:
..... Personally I think defence lawyers are the lowest of the low, how they live with the fact that their job is to get people, who they know are guilty, off is beyond me.....
This is often repeated but it is wrong. If a client admits to a crime but asks the lawyer to say he was innocent, then the lawyer will refuse to act (OK there are some dodgy ones that wont , just as there are dodgy coppers) If the client says he is innocent for the daftest of reasons then the lawyer can put that case to the judge/jury (but will certainly advise the client that "it woz an alien that did it, came down in a spaceship so 'e did" is NOT a convincing defence & they might be better off pleading guiltyEnut said:
My take from this case and other personal experiences is that most of the people who end up in court are guilty and know they are guilty. Sadly the criminal justice system is heavily weghted in favour of the criminals. Personally I think defence lawyers are the lowest of the low, how they live with the fact that their job is to get people, who they know are guilty, off is beyond me. I hope there is a special place in hell form them, along with drink drivers, obviously!
I used to think that until I saw someone convicted of a driving offence they didn't commit, based on dishonest statements made by the officers involved.The justice system may be weighted in favour of the "accused", but that's because it's based on the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise. Lawyers then defend the accused within a system of rules determined by the justice system. It's not their job to determine guilt or innnocence, and only to do their best for their client, within those rules. Equally, it's up to the police and the prosecution to do their job properly. If either side fail, or get it wrong, then guilty people can escape punishment, and the innocent can be punished for something they didn't do.
I too hate to see a guilty person get off due to a slippery lawyer using technicalities, but that's the system we have, and so i find it hard to blame the lawyers for it, any more than I'd blame accountants for using loophooles and technicalities to avoid tax.
QJumper said:
Enut said:
My take from this case and other personal experiences is that most of the people who end up in court are guilty and know they are guilty. Sadly the criminal justice system is heavily weghted in favour of the criminals. Personally I think defence lawyers are the lowest of the low, how they live with the fact that their job is to get people, who they know are guilty, off is beyond me. I hope there is a special place in hell form them, along with drink drivers, obviously!
I used to think that until I saw someone convicted of a driving offence they didn't commit, based on dishonest statements made by the officers Fun times but there is no way I was going to accept I was guilty of an offence that I hadn’t committed.
I still have a great deal of respect for the police service they do a difficult job but just because you encounter one bad one doesn’t make them all bad.
Maybe the law should be amended so that a guilty plea can be entered at any time, but if done in the week prior to the trial, it won't have any effect on sentencing.
Of course, the prison system is as underfunded as the justice system and policing, so the discount for ng presumably helps increasing the pressure on prisons.
Of course, the prison system is as underfunded as the justice system and policing, so the discount for ng presumably helps increasing the pressure on prisons.
Due to many extenuating circumstances where by people have been punished for crimes they hadn’t committed and in some cases been sentenced to death the basis for modern law is that you are innocent until proven guilty.
That then leads the way for the prosecution to establish the Burden of proof.
And then it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
I do agree that if people plead guilty from the time of a known offence then they would save the judicial system a fortune.
For big trials where custodial sentences are a possibility or a mandatory requirement there is an option for an early guilty plea which will reduce the length of any sentence.
But when it comes to the every day and dare I say mundane offences the option to change a not guilty plea outweighs the moral value of going guilty from the start.
That then leads the way for the prosecution to establish the Burden of proof.
And then it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
I do agree that if people plead guilty from the time of a known offence then they would save the judicial system a fortune.
For big trials where custodial sentences are a possibility or a mandatory requirement there is an option for an early guilty plea which will reduce the length of any sentence.
But when it comes to the every day and dare I say mundane offences the option to change a not guilty plea outweighs the moral value of going guilty from the start.
kowalski655 said:
Enut said:
..... Personally I think defence lawyers are the lowest of the low, how they live with the fact that their job is to get people, who they know are guilty, off is beyond me.....
This is often repeated but it is wrong. If a client admits to a crime but asks the lawyer to say he was innocent, then the lawyer will refuse to act (OK there are some dodgy ones that wont , just as there are dodgy coppers) If the client says he is innocent for the daftest of reasons then the lawyer can put that case to the judge/jury (but will certainly advise the client that "it woz an alien that did it, came down in a spaceship so 'e did" is NOT a convincing defence & they might be better off pleading guiltyThere is a marked difference between your everyday household conveyancing solicitor in your hometown and leeches working in criminal law.
kowalski655 said:
Enut said:
..... Personally I think defence lawyers are the lowest of the low, how they live with the fact that their job is to get people, who they know are guilty, off is beyond me.....
This is often repeated but it is wrong. If a client admits to a crime but asks the lawyer to say he was innocent, then the lawyer will refuse to act (OK there are some dodgy ones that wont , just as there are dodgy coppers) If the client says he is innocent for the daftest of reasons then the lawyer can put that case to the judge/jury (but will certainly advise the client that "it woz an alien that did it, came down in a spaceship so 'e did" is NOT a convincing defence & they might be better off pleading guiltyThey do it to buy time and see which witnesses turn up on the day, it is a game and they're playing it.
The amount of times I've been called to court which is nearly always a rest daynis obscene. To sit about for hours on end until the defendant changes their plea and we all get sent home without setting foot in a court room, I think it stinks and personally think there should be some consequences for wasting valuable money and precious court time.
The amount of times I've been called to court which is nearly always a rest daynis obscene. To sit about for hours on end until the defendant changes their plea and we all get sent home without setting foot in a court room, I think it stinks and personally think there should be some consequences for wasting valuable money and precious court time.
My friend is a clerk to the court dealing with civil actions.
They have to allocate court rooms, judges and lodgings sometimes,
Civil cases can be quite complex and often everything is reserved for 2 weeks or more.
Then on the day a deal is done on the steps and the case is withdrawn.
So everything is stood down and court time wasted as the schedules are fixed, you can’t call the next case early.
It’s their biggest frustration everybody involved is twiddling their thumbs till the next case
They have to allocate court rooms, judges and lodgings sometimes,
Civil cases can be quite complex and often everything is reserved for 2 weeks or more.
Then on the day a deal is done on the steps and the case is withdrawn.
So everything is stood down and court time wasted as the schedules are fixed, you can’t call the next case early.
It’s their biggest frustration everybody involved is twiddling their thumbs till the next case
Greendubber said:
They do it to buy time and see which witnesses turn up on the day, it is a game and they're playing it.
The amount of times I've been called to court which is nearly always a rest daynis obscene. To sit about for hours on end until the defendant changes their plea and we all get sent home without setting foot in a court room, I think it stinks and personally think there should be some consequences for wasting valuable money and precious court time.
135 full witness orders in two years, 37 times giving evidence. About a third of the cases where I did step foot in the box, I only said what was on my witness statement without any cross.The amount of times I've been called to court which is nearly always a rest daynis obscene. To sit about for hours on end until the defendant changes their plea and we all get sent home without setting foot in a court room, I think it stinks and personally think there should be some consequences for wasting valuable money and precious court time.
Waste of a day.
We don't seem to be any closer to answering why people are allowed to change their plea on the day though.
I think there could be some truth in that convicting more people will result in a downstream problem on prison capacity, or parole officers capacity or similar, but that's not a good reason to allow people to escape justice.
I think there could be some truth in that convicting more people will result in a downstream problem on prison capacity, or parole officers capacity or similar, but that's not a good reason to allow people to escape justice.
I would probably do the same to be honest!
Why would you not want to maximise your chances of "getting away with it" no matter what.
If someone doesn't turn up or CPS mess up then you can get away with it. I'm as honourable as the next man but self preservation is key and so I can't imagine any of you would at the first step, unless there was incontrovertible evidence, plead guilty.
Why would you not want to maximise your chances of "getting away with it" no matter what.
If someone doesn't turn up or CPS mess up then you can get away with it. I'm as honourable as the next man but self preservation is key and so I can't imagine any of you would at the first step, unless there was incontrovertible evidence, plead guilty.
vikingaero said:
The legal profession is held out to be honourable etc, but having contracted for firms and organisations in the Justice sector, it's all about money. Stringing out cases is the most common tactic. We've had legals on here who say that the pay is low and no-one does that or takes on low paying cases. Well there are plenty of small one/two man bands with offices above shops who do this sort of thing. Look at Wayne Couzens appealing his whole life tariff. He had nothing to lose in appealing the tariff, yet his lawyers had everything to gain financially, even if the chance of success was low.
There is a marked difference between your everyday household conveyancing solicitor in your hometown and leeches working in criminal law.
What contracting have you done which tells you it's all about the money exactly? Sold them some photocopiers maybe?There is a marked difference between your everyday household conveyancing solicitor in your hometown and leeches working in criminal law.
I can guarantee that I have been inside more crime practices than you over the last forty two years, and been involved in the day to day finances of those firms, and of all of them, I can only think of one where the principal was anything less than honourable. Very very few of these people do it for the money as, in most cases, there isn't much to be made.
Can you explain why the solicitors are to blame for Wayne Couzens' appeal? Did they advise him to appeal or did they act upon his instructions? How much did they get paid? Was it a fixed fee? I don't know so, do you?
The reason that many defendants change their plea at the last minute is that they are advised that, given the evidence against them, they are unlikely to succeed and will receive a bigger fine or a longer sentence. But it's their choice all along and, as long as they maintain their innocence, the solicitor will run the case accordingly.
You might not realise this but all solicitors acting in publicly funded work undergo peer review where their files are reviewed by other professionals and, believe me, if there is a slightest doubt about something - an attendance, a mileage claim, wrong advice given - it will be noted and raised.
IANAL but...I've always thought there should be some kind of sliding scale for the time-frame in which you plead guilty.
Plead guilty on the day of offence? Maximum penalty discount.
Plead guilty on the steps into court? No discount whatsoever. In fact, stick an extra 10% on the penalty!
Plead guilty on the day of offence? Maximum penalty discount.
Plead guilty on the steps into court? No discount whatsoever. In fact, stick an extra 10% on the penalty!
The answer to this post is for the OP to read The Secret Barrister and all will be revealed!
It's all about money, or lack of in the justice system, if someone pleads guilty at whatever point the cost of the trial is saved, thus saving the Department of Justice lots of money, which makes whichever asshat of an MP who hold that portfolio at the time, happy.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that defence lawyers are the lowest of the low have obviously never had need of one..
It's all about money, or lack of in the justice system, if someone pleads guilty at whatever point the cost of the trial is saved, thus saving the Department of Justice lots of money, which makes whichever asshat of an MP who hold that portfolio at the time, happy.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that defence lawyers are the lowest of the low have obviously never had need of one..
I've just read the initial thread, so this is about someone pleading not guilty when they initially admitted guilt.
It doesn't seem fair, but we live in a country that has the presumption of innocence, so until she is convicted or changes her plea to guilty she is innocent.
I'm fairly sure that there is already a weighting on any conviction regarding plea's and timings though...
It doesn't seem fair, but we live in a country that has the presumption of innocence, so until she is convicted or changes her plea to guilty she is innocent.
I'm fairly sure that there is already a weighting on any conviction regarding plea's and timings though...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff