Society & Politics

Difference between a Guilty and Not Guilty Plea?

I am interested in how things go in other countries (outside of Australia).

Yesterday I got to watch a guy who assaulted me be tried. The charge was Reckless Assault. He pleaded Guilty as there were witnesses and CCTV so he could not credibly plead Not Guilty.

To me it seemed one sided justice. His defense argued, of course, he was a good man and he had a character reference from his mom saying that.

My experience of him was that he is a viscous thug and that he is experienced at street fighting.

So if you see where I am going. In a Guilty plea the guilt is not contested but equally the extenuating circumstances advocated by the Defense are not contested by the prosecution. But ought to be if a commensurate sentence is to be reached.

Inherently the process was unbalanced because leniency arguments by the defense weren't contested. Not even my victim statement was referenced.

Maybe in my case it was a lazy prosecutor who just saw it as an easy box to tick.

But I am now suspecting it is more of a general problem that if defense leniency arguments aren't contested then inappropriate sentencing will take place.

I'd like opinions & experiences around that.

Difference between a Guilty and Not Guilty Plea?
Post Opinion