|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Latin||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
"Ball Sack" concept
Reasons for a Nolo plea
- The reason for this plea is to help protect a person from civil litigation as the result of committing a crime. It leaves more burden of proof on a litgant against the accused person.
- Although it is nice to think there is a "reason," like most aspects of law it is something that was inherited and modified to fit the circumstances. I have seen many nolo pleas, and they are almost always offered so as to convince the defendant to plead out by offering the spector of innocence. I have only heard of it a few times in felony cases, though it is probably more common in some places.Manney 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Could it be of any use in, say, death penalty case? If you plead guilty, you might get away with a life sentence; if you plead innocent and are found guilty, you may get executed - so is it possible to plead "nolo", get away with a life sentence but still let it be known that you say that you are innocent, but essentially want to plead guilty and save the court having to try you?
- If the prosecution and judge accepted a nolo plea in return for life, I don't see why not. It would only be part of a plea bargain though.Mneumisi 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I always took it as a way to say, "I'm guilty of the charges but I don't agree with the law, or don't feel I did anything wrong." Robinrobin (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Nolo contendere" is Latin and literally means "I do not want to contend it." Are people sure? My latin would give a literal translation of "I am unwilling to contend/contest" - with no object pronoun. lxowle 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"In Australia, a plea of Nolo contendere by a defendant in a criminal trial is not permitted. The defendant must enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Where a defendant refuses to enter a plea, the court will record a plea of not guilty."
Why is this important or relevant to the article? I think the sentence before: "Several other common law countries, however, prohibit the plea altogether." is sufficient. --Rayt5 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of if it's stated above, this is a further clarification. I, myself, am Australian, however "Several other common law countries, however, prohibit the plea altogether." does not tell me if Australia does permit or not. The summary is just that - a summary, not a replacement, of/for content. James.DenholmTalk to me... 05:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This may have English Ecclesiastical origins, but NOT Biblical ones.
In Matthews 26:63-65, Jesus is being questioned by the religious authorities and the high priest says, "I put You under oath by the Living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes saying, "He has spokedn blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!"
Jesus had claimed equality with God. In Mark 15:1-2 He is asked if He is the "King of the Jews" and He replies "It is as you say.." In Luke 22:70 Are you the Son of God and Jesus says "you rightly say that I am" In Luke 23:3 He replies "it is as you say" to the inquiry if He is King of the Jews. In John 18:33-37 In His exchange with Pilate He claims that His kingdom was "not of this world" He stayed silent only during all the accusations trumped up against him. During a direct question about His position, He claimed that He was God. He claimed it inthe way the Jews would know, Son of God and as noted in Matthew 26, "the Christ" (Greek for messiah). My notations are from the NKJV of the Bible.
This post is misleading and inaccurate. Those English Ecclessiatics may have said this, but the Bible itself DOES NOT. Anthony J. Fejfar is in error under the ORIGINS section. The phrase "nolo contendere" may have been used in English Ecclesiastical Law, but it is not based directly on the BIBLE! His sentence about Jesus neither agreed nor denied guilt to the charge of being the Messiah is incorrect. (see above notation) These sentences should be removed.````
the article contains a note about being too USA centric, but, does this plea actually exist anywhere else ? or is the poster to that note USA centric enough to think it exists somewhere else, when it doesn't ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)