Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHelm, RK
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-23T10:55:17Z
dc.date.issued2019-04-29
dc.description.abstractA criminal conviction resulting from a guilty plea rather than a full trial is typically justified on the basis that the defendant had the ability to go to trial, but instead chose to admit guilt in exchange for a small sentence reduction. In other words, the conviction, and associated waiver of rights, occurred by consent. In this article, I challenge that notion by drawing on psycho-legal research on vulnerability and consent and research on guilty pleas in the United States. I suggest that whilst plea procedure in England and Wales has largely escaped criticism due to modest sentence reductions compared to the United States ‘plea bargaining’ system, aspects of the system are highly problematic and are likely to be leading to non-consensual guilty pleas, in which innocent defendants are pleading guilty.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 83 (2), pp. 161-172.en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0022018318822223
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/34883
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2019.
dc.subjectguilty pleasen_GB
dc.subjectcriminal procedureen_GB
dc.subjectconsenten_GB
dc.subjectvulnerabilityen_GB
dc.titleConviction by Consent? Vulnerability, Autonomy, and Conviction by Guilty Pleaen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.identifier.issn0022-0191
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from SAGE Publications via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Criminal Lawen_GB
refterms.dateFOA2019-05-03T13:47:34Z


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record