Alford Plea

ALFORD PLEA
Author’s Name
Institute Affiliation
An Alford plea is also known as Kennedy plea, Alford doctrine, and Alford guilty plea. It is a form of a plea in the United States judicial system whereby a suspect denies of any wrongdoing and proclaims that he is innocent. Nevertheless, the suspect believes that the prosecution has enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of what he is being charged off. The guilty plea was named after Henry Alford in 1970 in the Carolina v. Alford (Blume and Helm, 2014). This was after he was charged with murder. The prosecution in his case announced that they intended to ask the jury for a death sentence. However, they offered him a deal if he took the guilty plea. During the process, Alford insisted that he did not commit the crime even though the state through the prosecution had enough evidence and the risks that were involved. Thus, when his case reached the supreme court of the United States, the bench ruled that a defendant or a suspect it was free to plead his innocence even though they had taken a guilty plea. However, the plea is not defective as long as the constitution is involved. Although the Alford plea was not a guiding case for the Supreme Court before this time, it, however, existed since the medieval times as nolo contendere. In essence, a defendant, in this case, offered money to the king without accepting the charges or admitting guilt. The main reason for taking this plea was to avoid the imminent imprisonment or punishment for whatever they were charged with.

Nevertheless, more than fifty states in the United States have in one time or another permitted the use of Alford plea (Blume and Helm, 2014). However, it has continued to be seen as a legal construct and a paradox. A person cannot be guilty and guilty at the same time for the one crime.
References
Blume, J. H., & Helm, R. K. (2014). The unexonerated: Factually innocent defendants who plead guilty. Cornell L. Rev., 100, 157.