In S.C., as in most cases, we have "no contest" pleas in misdemeanor courts and "Alford" pleas for felonies - the generally accepted definition is that in either case you are not admitting guilt to the offense but you are pleading to it anyway because you feel that you would be convicted at trial and you do not want to risk a harsher sentence at trial.
Rarely will I recommend to a client that they enter an "Alford" plea - in many cases defense lawyers, prosecutors, and judges will use it as a way to get a person to plead guilty even though they are maintaining their innocence - it is easier than a trial for everyone involved. On the other hand, if a person is maintaining their innocence, no-one should be forcing them to enter a guilty plea, and the defense lawyer should be working on building their case instead of working on ingenious ways to convince them to plead guilty.
There are some cases - where a person cannot remember what happened because of a blackout caused by intoxication, and the evidence is overwhelming - where I think that an Alford plea is appropriate. There are other situations where it may be appropriate, like where the nature of the plea could affect a pending civil action and it is important that there is no admission that can be used against the person later. But it is still a conviction and it is still on the person's record.
Early in my career there was a judge from Oconee County that earned my respect by always asking a defendant, "You wanna tell me what you did?" during the plea colloquy, and if what they told him did not match the elements of the crime charged he would not accept the plea. If a person is pleading guilty to a crime they need to admit that they committed the crime, and not waffle about whether they are in fact guilty. That judge would not take an Alford plea either, unless the person was intoxicated at the time of the incident and could not remember what had happened, there was evidence that would be enough to convict him at trial, and the person was gaining the benefit of a bargain by accepting the plea offer.
Back to the title of this post - I've recently discovered the blog Overheard in Court, and I discovered this gem that was posted there month before last:
It’s not uncommon for defendants in misdemeanor court to waive counsel and proceed pro se on a plea. The other day I was prosecuting such a defendant and explaining the offer we were making him on his criminal case.
He told me he wanted to take the offer, and I told him he could choose to plead either “Guilty” or “No Contest.” I started to generically explain the difference… “When you plead guilty, you’re admitting you committed the crime; when you plead no contest…”
He broke in and said: “Well, that’s just a sissy way of sayin’ guilty, isn’t it?
He then informed me he had “no desire to plead ’sissy.’”
