It seems that Florida prosecutors are offering Robert Kraft a plea deal: admit guilt and they’ll drop charges.
I’m utterly baffled by this. To me this strikes me as the legal version of my mom telling me she won’t punish me if I’ll just admit that I was a naughty boy. Why would the DA be so invested in a moral victory?
Also, is this a thing elsewhere in the criminal justice system? Do prosecutors routinely offer such a deal to first-time offenders whose crimes are low-level, victimless* ones?
*Yes I know much prostitution is not always victimless, but you get my point.
So they will essentially get all the punishment that they would have received if found guilty.
This makes me think of the new fad of imposing “civil penalties” where the accused wrong-doer is not convicted of a crime, but is required to pay a “civil penalty” for his alleged wrong-doing.
It’s not an Alford plea. As Alley points out, it appears to be an offer for a civil diversionary program. These offers are usually contingent on successfully completing the program and possibly paying restitution. Failure to meet the criteria results in the criminal charges being reinstated.
If they’ll drop all charges, it’s not a plea deal. The ESPN article got the legalese wrong.
No, an Alford plea includes pleading guilty to a charge; it’s a form of a guilty plea. The deferred prosecution deal being offered to Kraft means he wouldn’t enter into a plea at all.
In Colorado, where I practice criminal defense, there are two ways this might happen:
A deferred judgment - this is a case where a person enters a conditional guilty plea and then completes a term of probation (which might include certain conditions like community service along with payment of fines). Following successful completion of probation, the person is allowed to withdraw the guilty plea and the case is then dismissed. (If the person doesn’t fulfill the conditions of probation, then the conviction enters)
A deferred “pross” (or prosecution). This is where a person fulfills some condition (such as the completion of a class or community service) in exchange for then having the case dismissed. The person never pleads guilty. This is far rarer than a “D.J.” (above) and is more likely to be found in public nuisance types of cases.
Florida, where I am originally from, is not a place where I am familiar with the criminal justice system, so I don’t know how this might translate to what Kraft is being offered.
Presumably, it saves the state a lot of money and hassle. Prosecute some guy who can afford to pay a herd of lawyers (a murder? A swarm? A cesspool?) and you’ll tie up a bunch of prosecutors for a year answering filings and contesting inadmissibility motions, etc. etc. - for what? To basically get what they got from this deal, $5,000 a “pop” and “yes, I’m a bad boy”. I mean, other than the titillation value of “rich old fart caught getting happy endings” and “Really? You have a hundred million dollars and the best you can do is massage parlours? Here’s Eliot Spitzer’s number, he’ll give you better advice” - this is basically a minor everyday offense in the grand scheme of things, and nobody’s going to jail for it. Except the person running the slave/trafficking ring behind it.
The article calls it a “diversionary program.” It seems like he enters a guilty plea, but the judge does not accept the plea. If he stays out of trouble for a time, the case is dismissed. If he gets into more trouble, the judge accepts and enters his guilty plea and sentences him to whatever the judge thinks is appropriate for that crime under Florida law and given Kraft’s history or lack thereof.
And yes, it is a form of legal gamesmanship. Nobody wants even a misdemeanor conviction on their record and these types of resolutions allow the State to get punishment and restitution and the defendant gets to say that he was never convicted of the crime. Blame computer records and employers (including government employers) for giving two shits about a misdemeanor conviction for this new legal fiction.