109

And if so, would they get more prison time / a larger fine?

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 94 points 11 months ago

Think of a guilty/not guilty plea as the defense declaring their stance rather than literally saying "I did this" or "I did not do this". After all there are circumstances in which a person absolutely did the thing they're accused of but are not actually guilty (self defense) or extenuating circumstances need to be considered (insanity plea).

Perjury requires that a person lied under oath in a specific, provable way. That's why defense attorneys will sometimes have their client not take the stand or assert their fifth amendment rights in response to certain questions. Making the prosecution prove that the defendant did a thing is fine. Saying "I didn't do thing X at all" and then having evidence being presented that you did is no bueno.

TL;DR: A not guilty plea basically says "prove it". Perjury is lying about specifics and it can later be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you lied about those details.

[-] dgmib@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

Exactly.

Your choice is “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” not “Guilty” or “Innocent”.

(And for the pedantic out there yes, there are more things you can plead than just guilty or not guilty)

“Not guilty” doesn’t mean innocent, it just means you take the stance that prosecutors are unable to prove their version of events beyond reasonable doubt.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Plus prosecutors don't want to hold a separate trial (because that is what is required to charge perjury) if they already proved what they wanted to.

They will (likely) only charge perjury if you fuck up a third party's trial or if your lies are provable and got you off the hook otherwise.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 57 points 11 months ago

Simple answer is no. You have a constitutional right to say not guilty because it’s innocent until proven guilty.

[-] runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 11 months ago

In the US. Your milage may vary in other countries.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

It will vary in the US, too.

[-] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Remember this only applies in court. On the streets, it's guilty until shot.

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

A plea is not a testimony, and the defendant is not under oath at that point, so a not guilty plea is not seen as perjury. However, the defendant rejects any deals by pleading not guilty, so it might result in a more severe sentence.

(edit) There is also an option of "standing silent", or refusing to plead, in which case the judge can enter a plea of not guilty on the defendant's behalf, so that the rest of the trial can happen. Turning that "not guilty" plea into a perjury charge would be a pretty gross 1A violation.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago

However, the defendant rejects any deals by pleading not guilty, so it might result in a more severe sentence.

A bit tangential, but: In any criminal case (goes for civil, too, but with different terminology), the accused should always plead "not guilty" at arraignment. You can change your not guilty plea to guilty later on, if the prosecution offers a plea deal, or if some other set of circumstances make that plea your best choice. If and when you plead guilty, that's it, all over, move on to sentencing.

Further down this rabbit trail, if you arrange it with the prosecution, you can plead "no contest," which is a guilty plea that cannot be used against you in a later civil case. The plea itself does not make you civilly liable. In 47 states (exceptions: Indiana, New Jersey, and Michigan), you can submit an Alford plea. This plea is "I still proclaim innocence, but I agree that the State case is strong enough to convict me, and I do not have a sufficient defense." Such a plea is allowed when the plea deal offers an escape from a more severe sentence, as in life in prison vs. capital punishment, making the plea "in the best interest" of the accused.

[-] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 11 months ago

This plea is "I still proclaim innocence, but I agree that the State case is strong enough to convict me, and I do not have a sufficient defense." Such a plea is allowed when the plea deal offers an escape from a more severe sentence, as in life in prison vs. capital punishment, making the plea "in the best interest" of the accused.

This sounds a lot like a “the state violated my right to a fair trial but I have no recourse” plea.

[-] AmidFuror@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

Not necessarily. The circumstances of the crime could mean you don't have a viable defense even if innocent.

[-] solidgrue@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

In the US and many other Western nations, the law operates on the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty¹. To enter a plea as a defendant is to formally acknowledge charges filed in a court of law. A guilty plea simply indicates the defendant will not contest the charges, and the trial proceeds more or less directly to final adjudication and sentencing. Sometimes this is done as part of a plea deal where the prosecution and defense agree to a set of lesser charges, with reduced reduced jail times and/or larger fines. The defendant may noy even have committed any of the offences charged, but agrees to the to lesser charges to avoid time, expense or reputational harm of a lengthy trial.

A plea of not guilty simply indicates the defendant intends to challenge some or all of the charges, and is asserting their right to the presumption of innocence while the defense team reviews prosecutor's inculpatory evidence, prepares counterarguments and gathers exculpatory evidence.

The accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until a guilty verdict is reached on the basis of the evidence presented at trial. Additional charges of perjury would only apply where evidence is entered in bad faith, or if the defendant were to make false statements under oath.

  1. In theory. In practice, we all know people get railroaded for any number of reasons, but that's beside the point.
[-] TheGreenGolem@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 11 months ago

In Hungary, no. Because you only commit perjury if you are under oath on the stand as a witness. You are not under oath simply defending yourself. As my lawyer said to me once: you can say or lie literally anything you just want.

[-] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 11 months ago

This is common in European countries, but in the US and other common law countries, defendants who choose to testify are under oath like any other witness.

[-] TheGreenGolem@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 months ago

If you testify. But you can always say no to that, do I know it right?

[-] TheOneCurly@lemmy.theonecurly.page 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Same process in the United States

[-] Euphorazine@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Another thing to consider is just because someone says something that is not true based on reality, doesn't mean they lied. People's memories are terrible and easily manipulated.

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

This seems a very regional question.

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago
[-] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 2 points 11 months ago

No, that would be an awful thing to do. You have to allow people to zealously defend themselves from any accusation. Also, in the US, the fifth amendment protects the citizens from being forced to testify against themselves. So punishing someone for pleading not guilty would directly violate the 5th amendment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/

[-] Haphazard9479@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago
[-] Fisk400@feddit.nu 0 points 11 months ago

If we assume US centrism here since you didn't specify country then practically you do get punished for pleasing not guilty. Not because it's illegal to lie but because if you plead guilty you usually get a shorter sentence.

[-] God_Is_Love@reddthat.com -1 points 11 months ago

I love this question.

Also it makes me so angry when serial killers still try to deny their murders years after the fact. The only thing worse than a killer is a lying killer.

[-] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ah, yes, but what about a lying killer who also talks with their mouth full?

Truly diabolical.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 11 months ago

speaking with a mouthful of Mike: "What? No. I didn't kill and then eat Mike."

[-] Devi@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

I was watching a video recently where a guy denied eating someone so they settled it by going in their stomach, finding his lunch, and DNA testing it. It was indeed the dead guy.

[-] God_Is_Love@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago

Stop making me laugh so hard I'm gonna wake up my kid 😂

this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
109 points (93.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35868 readers
620 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS