Talk:North Carolina v. Alford/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hmm

In the dissent, Justice William Brennan stated that capital punishment in the United States was unconstitutional — this was effectively the case between 1967 and 1976

Hmm? What happened in 1967 and 1976? Evercat 00:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The death penalty was banned in the United States during that period. As William Brennan said, it was ruled unconstitutional. User:George

Removed this bit, could be added back with proper sourcing. Cirt (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

Please see Alford plea article where a different definition is given. Apparent POV fork; possible merger? Redheylin (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed this tag. Redheylin (talk · contribs) has failed to make his point about a purported contradiction, and has failed to present any sources to back up his argument. Cirt (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Self reverted my removal pending discussion of Redheylin's actions. Cirt (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose this absurd merge proposal. North Carolina v. Alford is the article about the case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The article Alford plea is about the guilty plea that arose out of precedent set by the case, but has evolved its own history and case law of its usage since then. The article about the Supreme Court case will obviously be expanded to include much more info on Majority and Dissenting opinions, and commentary on the case itself. The article on the form of guilty plea will certainly be expanded, and already has been a bit, to include more info on the usage of the plea in history since the case, and commentary on its usage by scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge The doctrine and the case are separate things which are both notable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose contradiction tag for this article. The contradiction tag seems to stem from a disagreement as to what a defendant is conceding when they enter an Alford plea, particularly as is relates to the strength of the evidence that exists in the case (see Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford Plea, Talk:Alford plea#Tags, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cirt). This article largely focuses on the details of the Alford case rather than the implications of an Alford plea (as it should). The intro sentence "This type of plea has become known as an Alford plea, differing slightly from the nolo contendere plea in which the defendant agrees to being sentenced for the crime, but does not admit guilt" is rather neutral and is unlikely to be in contradiction with whatever accurate wording emerges in other articles when the related Alford plea discussions are resolved. Billyboy01 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as well, per Cdogsimmons. Billyboy01 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge; as with Miranda warning and Miranda v. Arizona, the facts of the case are distinct from the doctrine that it spawned. bd2412 T 18:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)