A plea of not guilty is NOT evading responsibility
(click on image for full size)
It should be painfully obvious to most of us (even non criminal lawyers), but apparently not to the good folks at Good Morning America. Today’s show featured a segment with Nicole Richie, who is off to (or perhaps already in?) jail for a DUI conviction.
She was interviewed this morning by the venerable Diane Sawyer [click here for the story and the video on the right] who repeatedly insinuated that Richie’s plea of not guilty was connected with her lack of desire to take responsibility for her drunk driving.
As the story went, one day Richie and her baby-daddy were watching TV when, on the TV, started flashing pictures of kids who died in accidents caused by drunk drivers. This led to an epiphany on Richie’s part and now she’s going to court to “take responsibility” and plead guilty.
Stop perpetuating this nonsense, GMA. A plea of not guilty does not equate to evading responsibility. An accused has an absolute right to persist in a plea of not guilty. It simply means you are leaving the state to their burden of proof.
I can’t believe I’m posting about Nicole Richie.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on August 2, 2007 at 7:56 am, and is filed under criminal law principles, psa. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 years ago
What? No naked pictures? What a pointless story.
But if it makes you feel any better, I fully expect a plea of not guilty to be sufficient for a 1001 violation. I guess obstruction of justice for testifying just isn’t as fulfilling as it used to be.
about 2 years ago
I’m not even going to pretend to understand that.
about 2 years ago
What part of naked pictures don’t you understand?
about 2 years ago
You’ve got the naked head of a duck. What more do you want?
about 2 years ago
I agree that everyone has the right to put the state to the test, but the bottom line is that acceptance of responsibility means that you don’t try to fight the consequences. That putting the state to the test is a right doesn’t mean that it does not say something about your character if you are, in fact, guilty as charged. Of course, there may be extenuating circumstances, like the harshness of punishment etc. But making the state try you and convict you is inconsistent with taking responsibility.
about 2 years ago
Gideon, you must be desperate for readers.
Sean, you seem to be accepting responsibility means accepting the often-arbitrary legal consequences. Do you then equate “legal” with “ethical”? Do you imagine that our legislatures only pass laws that are morally or ethically correct? Or are you posting opinions again about things that you have never really though about it?
Love,
Mark.
about 2 years ago
Oops. You seem to be saying that . . .
about 2 years ago
How about this: what if someone pleads not guilty to possessing say, 100 marijuana plants, contending the actual number is something more like 10-15? And in their opening statement, the defense stipulates as much. Have they not “accepted responsibility” by your reasoning because they refused to yield to what they believe is the government’s erroneous charge? How is trying to make the state prove the amount “inconsistent with taking responsibility” under those facts, Sean?
about 2 years ago
You know, if you took the time to read what I wrote, you’d see the hypo answered. In any event, taking responsibility means owning up to what you did and facing the music.