Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorConklin, Michael
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-04T19:53:10Z
dc.date.available2021-01-04T19:53:10Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/128938
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|Fifty years ago, in North Carolina v. Alford, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it does not violate due process for a judge to accept a guilty plea from a defendant who maintains his innocence. Alford pleas are problematic to some, as they allow for the punishing of a defendant who has neither been adjudicated guilty nor admitted guilt. This essay critically evaluates the arguments against Alford pleas. It demonstrates that these anti-Alford plea arguments are largely a product of misunderstandings regarding innocence determinations, what constitutes coercion, and the impracticality of abolishing the practice. Furthermore, this essay discusses the overlooked benefits Alford pleas offer to defendants, victims, the criminal justice system, and society at large.en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleThe Alford Plea Turns Fifty: Why It Deserves Another Fifty Yearsen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume54en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.pages1-18en_US
dc.date.year2020en_US
dc.date.monthDecember
dc.description.issue1en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record