What's the difference if you plead guilty??

[the_bob_delusion]

Say you committed a crime. You have to plead guilty or not guilty.

What's really the difference between if you go to trial and be found guilty vs admitting you're guilty to start off with.

Do you get a more lenient sentence or something???

If not, wouldn't you be better off pleading not guilty and see how it plays out in trial.

[the_bob_delusion]

opening liar = openly lie.

[j*oono]

That's what I thought Karen.  Thanks.  It's just that there's always something they can bring up in defence and also I could understand pleading guilty to manslaughter rather than murder because murder is premeditated.

[cherry*135]

I don't think pleading guilty assures you of a lesser sentence. It would be an attempt at trying to get a lesser sentence.

It would depend on the crime to, a less serious crime probably has more scope for leniency.  

I read something on the websleuth website the other day about a person who has been charged with a crime voluntarily telling their barrister they are guilty.. from memory I don't think they can represent them if they tell them that... I will see if I can find it.

[the_bob_delusion]

The book probably got sold when you dropped out?

Joono, lawyers can and do plead not guilty when the client admits doing the crime, they seek mitigating circumstances such as mental illness, provocation, terrible childhood etc. but if the client admits guilt and there are no mitigating circumstances, they're not allowed to plead not guilty. Some lawyers instruct their client not to tell them.

exactly, lawyers don't care whether you're guilty or not. THat's not their job. it's what they can defend.

[*crikey*mate*]

79. A barrister briefed to appear in criminal proceedings whose client confesses guilt to
the barrister but maintains a plea of not guilty:

(a) should, subject to the client accepting the constraints set out in sub-rules (b)
to (h) but not otherwise, continue to act in the client’s defence;
(b) must not falsely suggest that some other person committed the offence
charged;
(c) must not set up an affirmative case inconsistent with the confession;
(d) must ensure that the prosecution is put to proof of its case;
(e) may argue that the evidence as a whole does not prove that the client is
guilty of the offence charged;
(f) may argue that for some reason of law the client is not guilty of the offence
charged;
(g) may argue that for any other reason not prohibited by (b) or (c) the client
should not be convicted of the offence charged; and
(h) must not continue to act if the client insists on giving evidence denying guilt
or requires the making of a statement asserting the client’s innocence.

[cherry*135]

What if a person has been charged with a crime, then they get appointed/choose a barrister. The person charged says yes, I did do the crime first time they meet with the barrister.

Would the barrister proceed with the court case and tell the person to plead not guilty or would the say OK you said you are guilty are you going to plead guilty in court. 

Different if the barrister just forms their own opinon that the person charged is probably guilty.

[cherry*135]

It must depend on whether the person charged acknowledges they are guilty and pleads guilty. As in the Meagher case.

If the person say No I didn't do it, then they must plead not guilty in court and a barrister will represent accordingly.

A barrister can't just make up their mind someone is guilty or not, if that person says they aren't guilty. That is for a court to decide.

[*crikey*mate*]

So are you certain of a fact, pleading guilty allows you a more lenient sentence???

I don't know why you bought God up but why should it matter if you suddently become religious while in gaol??? I can understand Christianity is attractive to rapist and murderers since all is forgiven. Another reason why that doctrine is immoral. Don't understand why people believe that???

You say how long you want to be locked up for. But if you committ a serious crime, you're going to be locked up for a long long time regardless so might as well roll the dice. Plenty of guilty people get off.

1) No - that is up to the judge, but read my comments above some of the things they take into consideration.

2) A high number of felons discover God whilst in Prison and present that at their parole hearing as evidence that they have realised the errors of their way and are now rehabilitated.

3) There is a lot of difference to being locked up for 8 years, 25 years and all the variations in between, including the length of parole.

4) Your initial plea will be taken into account at your parole hearings. i.e. did you accept guilt straight up or take time to realize that you were guilty - this would affect the length of rehabilitiation.

[just_me_karen]

Clients don't generally go see a barrister. They go to a lawyer who instructs the barrister or solicitor to do the representing in court.

the client could tell their lawyer that they did it, before the lawyer has a chance to say "don't tell me",,,, then they'd ask why, to look for mitigating circumstances. That's fair because sometimes there are genuine mitigating circumstances, or like Joono said, a lesser crime.

[*crikey*mate*]

Solicitors Rules - 20 - Admission of guilt

20.1 If a practitioner's client, who is the accused or defendant in criminal proceedings, admits to the practitioner before the commencement of, or during, the proceedings, that the client is guilty of the offence charged, the practitioner must not, whether acting as instructing practitioner or advocate -

20.1.1 put a defence case which is inconsistent with the client's confession;20.1.2 falsely claim or suggest that another person committed the offence; or20.1.3 continue to act if the client insists on giving evidence denying guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting the client's innocence.

20.2 A practitioner may continue to act for a client who elects to plead "not guilty" after admitting guilt to the practitioner, and in that event, the practitioner must ensure that the prosecution is put to proof of its case, and the practitioner may argue that the evidence is insufficient to justify a conviction or that the prosecution has otherwise failed to establish the commission of the offence by the client

http://www.lawsociety.com.au/ForSolictors/professionalstandards/Ruleslegislation/SolicitorsRules/ind...