It is meaningless. It just signals to the court whether you intend to fight and whether or not the prosecution has to bother with the burden to prove a crime was committed.

But its also (illegally) used by judges to determine how much they want to punish someone, for the trouble. So if you plead not guilty but are guilty, they can hit you hard in sentencing....which is ridiculous, because it's always the burden of the prosecution to prove a crime was committed, and a person may be able to waive that for expediency, but it can't exactly be taken away entirely, otherwise that's the same as disallowing a person to have the right of being innocent until proven guilty.

The wording is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not innocent until they say they are guilty. Of course you could say that a defendants own admittance of guilt is proof, and that's fine, but if they withdraw that admittance of guilt, then that's no different than having bad evidence, which wouldn't matter, because if the prosecution has other evidence of a crime than a guilty plea, they should just prosecute as normal, because the burden is still on them to prove guilt.

In a sick way, the only reasonable purpose of how it is now, is to entrap people that the prosecution may not have the goods on to truly prove guilt, to use it to scare them into a guilty plea.

A guilty plea should be able to be withdrawn at any time with NO kind of punishment. That might lead to some extra fuckery in the courts from defendants, but if prosecution has proven their case in a court, changing a plea to not guilty won't functionally change a thing about how the judicial system operates (or rather, should operate).

It is meaningless. It just signals to the court whether you intend to fight and whether or not the prosecution has to bother with the burden to prove a crime was committed.

But its also (illegally) used by judges to determine how much they want to punish someone, for the trouble. So if you plead not guilty but are guilty, they can hit you hard in sentencing....which is ridiculous, because it's always the burden of the prosecution to prove a crime was committed, and a person may be able to waive that for expediency, but it can't exactly be taken away entirely, otherwise that's the same as disallowing a person to have the right of being innocent until proven guilty.

The wording is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not innocent until they say they are guilty. Of course you could say that a defendants own admittance of guilt is proof, and that's fine, but if they withdraw that admittance of guilt, then that's no different than having bad evidence, which wouldn't matter, because if the prosecution has other evidence of a crime than a guilty plea, they should just prosecute as normal, because the burden is still on them to prove guilt.

In a sick way, the only reasonable purpose of how it is now, is to entrap people that the prosecution may not have have the goods on to truly prove guilt, to use it to scare them into a guilty plea.

A guilty plea should be able to be withdrawn at any time with NO kind of punishment. That might lead to some extra fuckery in the courts from defendants, but if prosecution has proven their case in a court, changing a plea to not guilty won't functionally change a thing about how the judicial system operates (or rather, should operate).

It is meaningless. It just signals to the court whether you intend to fight and whether or not the prosecution has to bother with the burden to prove a crime was committed.

But its also (illegally) used by judges to determine how much they want to punish someone, for the trouble. So if you plead not guilty but are guilty, they can hit you hard in sentencing....which is ridiculous, because it's always the burden of the prosecution to prove a crime was committed, and a person may be able to waive that for expediency, but it can't exactly be taken away entirely, otherwise that's the same as disallowing a person to have the right of being innocent until proven guilty.

The wording is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not innocent until they say they are guilty. Of course you could say that a defendants own admittance of guilty is proof, and that's fine, but if they withdraw that admittance of guilt, then that's no different than having bad evidence, which wouldn't matter, because if the prosecution has other evidence of a crime than a guilty plea, they should just prosecute as normal, because the burden is still on them to prove guilt.

In a sick way, the only reasonable purpose of how it is now, is to entrap people that the prosecution may not have have the goods on to truly prove guilt, to use it to scare them into a guilty plea.

A guilty plea should be able to be withdrawn at any time with NO kind of punishment. That might lead to some extra fuckery in the courts from defendants, but if prosecution has proven their case in a court, changing a plea to not guilty won't functionally change a thing about how the judicial system operates (or rather, should operate).

It is meaningless. It just signals to the court whether you intend to fight and whether or not the prosecution has to bother with the burden to prove a crime was committed.

But its also (illegally) used by judges to determine how much they want to punish someone, for the trouble. So if you plead not guilty but are guilty, they can hit you hard....which is ridiculous, because it's always the burden of the prosecution to prove a crime was committed, and a person may be able to waive that for expediency, but it can't exactly be taken away entirely, otherwise that's the same as disallowing a person to have the right of being innocent until proven guilty.

The wording is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not innocent until they say they are guilty. Of course you could say that a defendants own admittance of guilty is proof, and that's fine, but if they withdraw that admittance of guilt, then that's no different than having bad evidence, which wouldn't matter, because if the prosecution has other evidence of a crime than a guilty plea, they should just prosecute as normal, because the burden is still on them to prove guilt.

In a sick way, the only reasonable purpose of how it is now, is to entrap people that the prosecution may not have have the goods on to truly prove guilt, to use it to scare them into a guilty plea.

A guilty plea should be able to be withdrawn at any time with NO kind of punishment. That might lead to some extra fuckery in the courts from defendants, but if prosecution has proven their case in a court, changing a plea to not guilty won't functionally change a thing about how the judicial system operates (or rather, should operate).

It is meaningless. It just signals to the court whether you intend to fight and whether or not the prosecution has to bother with the burden to prove a crime was committed.

But its also (illegally) used by judges to determine how much they want to punish someone, for the trouble. So if you plead not guilty but are guilty, they can hit you hard....which is ridiculous, because it's always the burden of the prosecution to prove a crime was committed, and a person may be able to waive that for expediency, but it can't exactly be taken away entirely, otherwise that's the same as disallowing a person to have the right of being innocent until proven guilty.

The wording is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not innocent until they say they are guilty. Of course you could say that a defendants own admittance of guilty is proof, and that's fine, but if they withdraw that admittance of guilt, then that's no different than having bad evidence, which wouldn't matter, because if the prosecution has other evidence of a crime than a guilty plea, they should just prosecute as normal, because the burden is still on them to prove guilt.

In a sick way, the only reasonable purpose of how it is now, is to entrap people that the prosecution may not have have the goods on to truly prove guilt, to use it to scare them into a guilty plea.

A guilty plea should be able to be withdrawn at any time with NO kind of punishment. That might lead to some extra fuckery in the courts from defendants, but if prosecution has proven their case in a court, changing a plea to not guilty won't functionally change a thing about how the judicial system operates.