Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 29 November 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alford plea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Origin

Who is/was Alford? How did this plea come to be named after hir? 71.82.157.201 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Guilty or not guilty

As a layman, I am confused by this article. Consider mainly the following claims:

an Alford plea is a plea in criminal court in which the defendant does not
admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence
exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to
find the defendant guilty.

(I am innocent, but refrain from fighting a fight that I will likely lose regardless.)

The Alford plea differs slightly from the nolo contendere ("no contest") plea.
An Alford plea is simply a form of a guilty plea, 
On the other hand, a nolo contendere plea is in no way an admission of guilt,

(I am guilty after all, else I would have pleaded nolo contendere.)

88.77.149.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Tags

I tagged as contradictory due to conflict with North Carolina v. Alford as, unlike the latter, this article says that in order to enter such a plea there must be an admission that "sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty." Is this a POV fork? It has stood for several years without citation. Redheylin (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I further note the change of article's name by User:Cirt and the addition of refs. However, Google gives 32000 hits for the former title and only 11000 for the new one. I note that the user has made these changes in the course of a dispute at Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) I further note that the cited source fails to back the assertion it references. This is rather serious..... Redheylin (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Second reference also fails Redheylin (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. And I have given multiple sources. And will continue to add more. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

3rd claimed source is a book on social psychology which contains a single unverifiable reference to "Alford". I have noted the editor's remark above that these verifiable assertions of mine are "incorrect" and so, bearing in mind the editor's status and the nature and intent of the apparent violations, shall report the incident.Redheylin (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not "unverifiable". Cirt (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin; the first cited source that you mention Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases does use the term "Alford guilty plea", 7 times on 5 pages . You are correct when you point out that "Alford plea" seems to be the preferred term though. Google: "Alford plea"|"Alford guilty plea" = Google search 31,900|11,200, Google news (recent) 102|2, Google news (archive) 9,790|169, Google books 644|61, Google scholar 347|23. All forms of Google search favour "Alford plea" rather than "Alford guilty plea" and by a very large majority. While you are also correct that the second cited source that you mentioned Dictionary of American criminal justice doesn't use "Alford guilty plea" (it uses "Alford plea" instead), it's likely that reference wasn't actually provided for the definition of the name of the article, but for a definition of what an Alford plea is (what it means). Cirt, is it worth considering changing the name back to "Alford plea" in light of the Google News, Books and Scholar results? Brumski (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Brumski, for pointing out the obvious to Redheylin (talk · contribs). I would say that as per Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases, the more specific term is the one used currently on the page. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You've provided 7 references for the opening paragraph, in order to help define the term. All but one of those references use only "Alford plea" and never use "Alford guilty plea" (I can't check the 7th as it's not searchable online, although it seems likely it uses the same "Alford plea" term the others do. If you still have access to that 7th reference: Gender, Crime, and Punishment you could check what term it uses). Doesn't the exclusive use of "Alford plea" by all but one of your own defining references indicate that it would be the more appropriate term? Brumski (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

@Brumski how about a move back to the shorter term, with an acknowledgment in the lede that both terms are in usage? E.g. "also known as...". Sound reasonable? Cirt (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good solution. Brumski (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brumski - the question I raised at the Law Portal concerned the necessity that an "Alford" plea requires admission of substantial evidence, an assertion which is not supported at North Carolina v. Alford. This was triggered by conversation at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). My attempt to get legitimate expert help to clarifying and improving these articles (I'd not presume to edit myself) were forestalled by Cirt's edits. My objection here and at ANI concerns the addition of references by Cirt that claim to support this requirement but do not. These are bogus links clearly added, I believe, purely to carry a point on a tangentially-related page. To make it clear, my objections to the links are not in regard to the renaming of the page, though this too was apparently undertaken with the same goal. The need for harmonisation of these two pages with reliable sources has been suppressed in an unacceptable manner. Redheylin (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted removal of tags at North Carolina v. Alford since the claimed "improvements" are absent and the matter is unresolved. Redheylin (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin - you have now made unsupported claims both on this page and at ANI that I have used "bogus" sources. I request that you cease making these false claims and retract them. Cirt (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Redheylin, I think I misinterpreted you as claiming the sources didn't back the article name change whereas really it looks like you're claiming the sources don't back the phrase "but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". It seems to me that you have a point worth considering. The thrust of North Carolina v. Alford doesn't seem to be that the Alford is specifically admitting there is sufficient evidence to convict. Also, the Trial on Trial reference in the Definition section of this article, which appears next to the text "by admitting there is enough evidence to convict them of a higher crime" is actually referencing the previous sentence "Defendants can take advantage of the ability to use the Alford guilty plea" rather than the sentence claiming the defendant admits there is enough evidence to convict. I suppose the questions are i) do the sources provided emphasize that the defendant is admitting there is enough evidence to convict, or do they emphasis something slightly different, ii) is the emphasis original research to a certain degree, due to spill over from a wider dispute where the defendant's admittance is being argued over and iii) do the articles diverge on this emphasis. I don't know but I can have a read through and check and offer an opinion. That won't be an opinion as a legal expert though, just as someone that can read sources and see if they agree with the article. Brumski (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brumski, yes, the sources do say that the Alford plea means defendants state there is enough evidence to convict. This is made quite clear later in the article. Every single sentence in the article is cited to WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Split up the sentence in the lede, to make this even more clear. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not agreeing there is any attempt to falsify any sources or any deliberate attempt to get the article to say something that the sources do not. If the sources don't explicitly say the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists and the article does (and I'm not claiming the sources don't, just that there is a nuanced point to consider) then it seems fairly obvious to me that's because of interpretation and not because of a falsification of sources. Also, whether the defendant states there is enough evidence to convict him or whether his lawyer believes there is probably enough evidence to convict (which is what North_Carolina_v._Alford#Trial_and_appeals says) or whether by accepting the guilty plea the defendant is tacitly accepting there is substantial evidence for conviction, is a fairly small difference. I think I'll look at this later rather than sooner as I'm only really interested in what the article says with respect to it's sources and don't want to get sucked into or influence a tangential dispute that's being looked at by other people. Brumski (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brumski, I'd rather we not compare existing Misplaced Pages articles for absolute references, but rather stick to a discussion of what is said in secondary sources. I already worked very hard to improve this article. Its prior state had no sources. I added material cited to twenty-six sources. The article about the case before the Supreme Court of the United States is similarly in a poor-quality shape. I added a few cites, to make sure all existing info in that article is cited, and indeed I improved it such that now every single sentence in that article is cited to WP:RS sources - but I have yet to fully expand and improve upon that article as well. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brumski, thanks for your input. Very fine-cut, looks like you missed your vocation. The question arose when it was proposed at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) when it was proposed that the plea entered showed that evidence existed which, due to a plea-bargain, was never produced. Statements made by the subject show that he most certainly did not admit the existence of such evidence. In this context the difference between such an explicit admission on the plaintiff's part and a tacit admission on the lawyer's are indeed germane. I understand that the above necessity accounts for the difference between this and a nolo contendere plea, but cannot figure out if it is mandatory and whether it differs between US states.

Seeking enlightenment on this I consulted this article and North Carolina v. Alford but found them unsourced and not in agreement. I therefore tagged the pages as a possible POV fork and requested help at the Law Project (not yet forthcoming). I'd like to see the pages brought into line with one another. The references brought by user Cirt did not support the allegation (Cirt is a keen editor of pages hostile to the subject) and required ANI. I'll leave it to you, if I may, to ensure an accurate, neutral and verifiable outcome for both pages since I am not even a US citizen. I'd be happy to stay in touch, though, would gladly help get the thing completely straight, and once again thank you for your own help. Redheylin (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

Removed this tag. Redheylin (talk · contribs) has failed to make his point about a purported contradiction, and has failed to present any sources to back up his argument. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Self-reverted my removal, pending discussion of Redheylin's actions. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Improved

I improved this article, and now the article has cites for every single sentence in the article. I will be back later to make further improvements and additions. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What the sources actually say

1. Fisher, George (2003). Plea Bargaining's Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America. Stanford University Press. p. 319. ISBN 0804751358.

   "...Alford plea, in which the defendant adheres to her claim of innocence even while allowing that the government has enough evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (Alford 400 U.S. at 38)"

2. Davidson, Michael J. (1999). A Guide to Military Criminal Law. US Naval Institute Press. p. 56. ISBN 1557501556.

   "Unlike the civilian system, the military does not permit an Alford plea, one in which the defendant concedes that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict, but the defendant still refuses to admit guilt."

3. Raymond, Walter John (1992). Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms. Brunswick Publishing Corporation. p. 9. ISBN 978-1556180088.

   "Alford Plea. 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."

4. Daly, Kathleen (1996). Gender, Crime, and Punishment. Yale University Press. p. 20. ISBN 0300068662.

   "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."

5. Judge, Michael T. (November 2009). "Criminal law and procedure". University of Richmond Law Review. 44. University of Richmond Law Review Association: 339. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

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

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
• WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles