Prosecutors have said that Joseph Czuba, 71, targeted 6-year-old Wadea Al-Fayoume and his mother because of their Muslim faith amid the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas.
If you plead “no contest”, the prosecution does not have to prove your guilt and the court will proceed to sentencing just as if you had pleaded “guilty”. Functionally, it is identical to a guilty plea.
no contest: A plea by a criminal defendant that they will not contest a charge. A no contest plea does not expressly admit guilt, but nonetheless waives the right to a trial and authorizes the court to treat the criminal defendant as if they were guilty for purposes of sentencing.
“Not confessing” and “not contesting” are different things. So, as I originally said, someone who doesn’t want to confess can still plead not guilty. Which, as I said, has a completely different function than pleading no contest.
You seem to equate a plea of ‘not guilty’ with ‘not confessing.’
That’s not what I said. I said that “not guilty” does not necessarily mean “innocent”. One can plead “not guilty” if one is not innocent. If so, that can be understood as “not admitting guilt but contesting the charges”. But that is still not the same as “no contest”, which can be understood as “not admitting guilt but not contesting the charges”.
Functionally, the only thing that matters is whether one contests the charges. Which is why “no contest” (not admitting guilt but not contesting) is functionally the same as “guilty” (admitting guilt and not contesting).
Incorrect.
You’re describing ‘no contest.’
No, “No contest” is functionally identical to “Guilty”.
No it’s not.
It’s functionally identical to what you thought ‘not guilty’ was.
If you plead “no contest”, the prosecution does not have to prove your guilt and the court will proceed to sentencing just as if you had pleaded “guilty”. Functionally, it is identical to a guilty plea.
Per your article:
Your original comment:
“Not guilty” means you are contesting the charges. No contest means you’re not confessing and not contesting the charges.
This is only true if the defendant contests the charges. “Not confessing” and “contesting” are two different things.
“Not confessing” and “not contesting” are different things. So, as I originally said, someone who doesn’t want to confess can still plead not guilty. Which, as I said, has a completely different function than pleading no contest.
Then they would be contesting the charges. A plea of ‘not guilty’ means you are contesting the charges.
Yes, contesting the charges has a completely different function than not contesting the charges.
You seem to equate a plea of ‘not guilty’ with ‘not confessing.’ This isn’t true. A plea of not guilty means you are contesting the charges.
A plea of ‘no contest’ means you are not contesting the charges, nor are you admitting guilt (confessing.)
Sorry, I’ve explained things as best I can. If you don’t get it now, you never will and I think we should both move on.
That’s not what I said. I said that “not guilty” does not necessarily mean “innocent”. One can plead “not guilty” if one is not innocent. If so, that can be understood as “not admitting guilt but contesting the charges”. But that is still not the same as “no contest”, which can be understood as “not admitting guilt but not contesting the charges”.
Functionally, the only thing that matters is whether one contests the charges. Which is why “no contest” (not admitting guilt but not contesting) is functionally the same as “guilty” (admitting guilt and not contesting).