What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

I much prefer Earl Grey these days

http://ridingpretty.com/blog_images/tweed%20colin.jpg

http://images.cafepress.com/image/11543087_400x400.jpg

Going back a ways, I have to comment on this: we DON'T have public trials of people who confess and plead guilty.

Due process of law. No matter if the accused confess or not, the trial must go on.

:up:

Ah the plea bargain, where the defendant opts to do a deal instead of going to trial.
So that is where the defendant chooses to waive rights and either offer no contest or plead guilty in exchange for punishment within a pre negotiated range.
Have any of the detainees in question requested this option?

I should have said "plead guilty". If at the arraignment the defendent pleads guilty there is no trial, and the court proceeds to sentencing hearings.

Edit: I *DID* say "plead". Heh.

It depends on the jurisdiction and the crime. In some jurisdictions, the prosecution still needs to plead its case.

Really?

There have been several cases in the UK where someone who pleaded
guilty was proven innocent.

Perhaps, but the topic isn't about the UK's prisoners at Gitmo. It's about the US'.

And in US FEDERAL COURT (to answer the question of jurisdiction), there is no trial for someone who pleads guilty.

In fact, I'm wondering what jurisdiction actually tries a case where the defendant pleads guilty, because that would make no sense.

By the way, when you say "really?", what part about what I said is not a fact? Yes, REALLY, when someone pleads guilty, there is no trial - regardless of whether or not that person is actually guilty.

Well, if you're talking about tea, why is there a photo of you outside the urologist's office?

Correct. In the case of US Federal Courts, the judge would have to first refuse the guilty plea.

The most applicable, to this thread, jurisdiction is the US Military. Under US Military law, a defendant accused of a capitol crime where the death penalty is authorized, the defendant is not allowed to plead guilty. The Prosecution must make its case despite any claims of guilt by the defendant.

In the case of the Gitmo detainees, this is one of the reasons why many people want them tried in civil court. In civil federal court, a defendant can plead guilty to a capitol case and there will be no trial.

http://www.911omissionreport.com/gui...tal_pleas.html

I admit, I am of 2 minds on this. If the defendants plead guilty - as they did previously, then there is no reason to have a public trial. The question is - does their wish for martydom outweigh their desire to publicly denounce the US? It is unlikely they will get the death penalty if there is a trial. However, that denies them martyrdom, since a death of natural causes in jail isn't the same as being killed.

Lets see what they plead. I don't fear them being tried in a civilian court. My only issue is that they are being given a set of rights that they do not have a claim to. Sets a bad precedent.