What does it mean to plead “no contest” to a criminal or traffic offense?

このQ&Aのポイント
  • A plea is a person’s formal response to a criminal or traffic charge. A person charged with a criminal or traffic offense is called the defendant. The defendant can choose from the pleas of guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, or no-contest. Entering a plea refers to the judge’s act of formally noting a defendant’s plea, or “entering” it, in the court’s official file.
  • If you enter a no-contest plea, it means that, while you do not admit your guilt, you do admit the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment, information or complaint (the so-called “charging” documents that start a criminal or traffic case). No-contest pleas are sometimes know as “nolo contendere” or just “nolo” pleas.
  • If you plead guilty, you are admitting to the facts and the legal consequences of those facts. The benefit of a no-contest plea (when you admit the facts, but not your guilt) is that it allows you to avoid a trial if your defense has become hopeless, but it prevents the plea from being used against you in any later civil or criminal proceeding. It also allows you the opportunity to appeal rulings by the court, such as rulings allowing certain evidence to be used by the government.
回答を見る
  • ベストアンサー

和訳をお願い致します(長めです)。

和訳をお願いします。 自分で訳してみたのですが、どうも意味が分かり辛い部分が合って、うまく把握できないので、どなたか和訳をして頂けると助かります。アメリカの交通違反の違反切符についての説明の一部です。 Q:What does it mean to plead “no contest” to a criminal or traffic offense? A: A plea is a person’s formal response to a criminal or traffic charge. A person charged with a criminal or traffic offense is called the defendant. The defendant can choose from the pleas of guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, or no-contest. Entering a plea refers to the judge’s act of formally noting a defendant’s plea, or “entering” it, in the court’s official file. If you enter a no-contest plea, it means that, while you do not admit your guilt, you do admit the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment, information or complaint (the so-called “charging” documents that start a criminal or traffic case). No-contest pleas are sometimes know as “nolo contendere” or just “nolo” pleas. Q: So what’s the difference between pleading guilty and pleading no contest? A: Good question. Sometimes there’s no difference whatsoever and sometimes there’s a big difference. If you plead guilty, you are admitting to the facts and the legal consequences of those facts. The benefit of a no-contest plea (when you admit the facts, but not your guilt) is that it allows you to avoid a trial if your defense has become hopeless, but it prevents the plea from being used against you in any later civil or criminal proceeding. It also allows you the opportunity to appeal rulings by the court, such as rulings allowing certain evidence to be used by the government.

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • ddeana
  • ベストアンサー率74% (2976/4019)
回答No.1

Q:犯罪または交通違反に対し「抗弁いたしません」と申し立てるとはどういうことですか? A:罪状認否は犯罪や交通違反における個人の正式な回答です。犯罪や交通違反で起訴された人を被告人と呼びます。被告人は有罪、無罪、精神障害による無罪、もしくは抗弁せずの中から選ぶことが出来ます。罪状認否をするということは裁判官が裁判所の公式ファイルとして、被告人の罪状申し立てもしくは答弁を行った旨を書き記すことを意味します。もしあなたが「抗弁せず」とした場合、それはあなたが自分の罪を認めはしないが、起訴状や告訴状、抗告(刑事事件もしくは交通事件などに着手する「起訴」状と呼ばれるもの)で申し立てられている事実については認めるということを意味します。非抗訴抗弁はしばしば「nolo contendere」(※1)や単に「Nolo」という言い方で知られています。 Q:では、「罪状を認める」と「罪状を争わない」の違いはなんですか? A:よい質問です。時にはまったく違いがなかったり、大きな違いがあったりします。あなたが罪状を認めるということは、犯罪事実とその事実による法的帰結を認めているということです。「抗弁せず=罪状を争わない」(事実は認めるが罪は認めない)の利点は、あなたの答弁が認められそうもない時、裁判を避けることを許めることです。が、それはそれ以降のいかなる民事もしくは刑事手続きにおいても、あなたに対して用いられる抗弁(もしくは嘆願)を阻むものとなります。「抗弁せず」はまた、例えば行政機関によって使われる確たる証拠の使用を許可する決定など、裁判所において裁判を不服として控訴する機会をも可能にします。 ※1:ラテン語でI do not wish to contest=有罪を認めないが検察側の主張に反対しないという答弁.

eeyore5
質問者

お礼

ご回答ありがとうございます!!!

関連するQ&A

  • 英和翻訳 difficult one

    正しい日本語に書き直すことをお願いします Can a judge, accept a “guilty plea” without a trial, after listening to the defendant explain he is not guilty, or after listening to the defendant explain he has to confess or he won't be released, without violating the defendant's right not to be compelled to plead guilty? 被告が罪状(有罪)を認めることを強制されない権利を侵害することなく、裁判官が被告の有罪ではない説明と自白しないと釈放することができない説明を聞いた後、審理なしで「有罪答弁」を受諾することができるか。 The right not to be compelled to plead guilty = 罪状を認めることを強制されない権利 ??有罪を認める~ ??

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    After all,' says Buckland, it should be recollected that the question is not respecting the correctness of the Mosaic narrative, but of our interpretation of it,' proposition which can hardly be sufficiently reprobated. Such a doctrine, carried out unreservedly, strikes at the root of critical morality. It may, indeed, be sometimes possible to give two or three different interpretations to one and the same passage, even in a modern and familiar tongue, in which case this may arise from the unskilfulness of the writer or speaker who has failed clearly to express his thought. In a dead or foreign language the difficulty may arise from our own want of familiarity with its forms of speech, or in an ancient book we may be puzzled by allusions and modes of thought the key to which has been lost. But it is no part of the commentator's or interpreter's business to introduce obscurity or find difficulties where none exist, and it cannot be pretended that, taking it as a question of the use of words to express thoughts, there are any peculiar difficulties about understanding the first chapter of Genesis, whether in its original Hebrew or in our common translation, which represents the original with all necessary exactness. The difficulties arise for the first time, when we seek to import a meaning into the language which it certainly never could have conveyed to those to whom it was originally addressed. Unless we go the whole length of supposing the simple account of the Hebrew cosmogonist to be a series of awkward equivocations, in which he attempted to give a representation widely different from the facts, yet, without trespassing against literal truth, we can find no difficulty in interpreting his words. Although language may be, and often has been, used for the purpose, not of expressing, but concealing thought, no such charge can fairly be laid against the Hebrew writer.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The early speculator was harassed by no such scruples, and asserted as facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities. But we are not on that account to doubt his perfect good faith, nor need we attribute to him wilful misrepresentation, or consciousness of asserting that which he knew not to be true. He had seized one great truth, in which, indeed, he anticipated the highest revelation of modern enquiry -- namely, the unity of the design of the world, and its subordination to one sole Maker and Lawgiver. With regard to details, observation failed him. He knew little of the earth's surface, or of its shape and place in the universe; the infinite varieties of organized existences which people it, the distinct floras and faunas of its different continents, were unknown to him. But he saw that all which lay within his observation bad been formed for the benefit and service of man, and the goodness of the Creator to his creatures was the thought predominant in his mind. Man's closer relations to his Maker is indicated by the representation that he was formed last of all creatures, and in the visible likeness of God. For ages, this simple view of creation satisfied the wants of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological teaching, and if modern research now shows it to be physically untenable, our respect for the narrative which has played so important a part in the culture of our race need be in nowise diminished. No one contends that it can be used as a basis of astronomical or geological teaching, and those who profess to see in it an accordance with facts, only do this sub modo, and by processes which despoil it of its consistency and grandeur, both which may be preserved if we recognise in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which it has pleased Providence to use Providence a special way for the education of mankind.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    In actual research these three objects are prosecuted, not successively, but simultaneously. Thus it is not necessary in either case that the final object — that of classification- should wait for its commencement upon the completion of the dissection or analysis of every organism or every mental structure that is to be found upon the earth. On the con trary, the comparison in each case begins with the facts that are first found to be comparable, and is afterwards pro gressively extended as knowledge of additional facts becomes more extensive. * The word " structure " is used in a metaphorical sense when applied to mind, but the usage it convenient.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    But whether contemplated from a geological point of view, or whether from a philological one, that is, with reference to the value of words, the use of language, and the ordinary rules which govern writers whose object it is to make themselves understood by those to whom their works are immediately addressed, the interpretation proposed by Buckland to be given to the Mosaic description will not bear a moment's serious discussion. It is plain, from the whole tenor of the narrative, that the writer contemplated no such representation as that suggested, nor could any such idea have entered into the minds of those to whom the account was first given. Dr. Buckland endeavours to make out that we have here simply a case of leaving out facts which did not particularly concern the writer's purpose, so that he gave an account true so far as it went, though imperfect.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The point is that, notwithstanding special difficulties in assigning this or that being to one or the other class, the psychological classification which I advocate resembles the zoological classification which I have cited ; it is a valid classification, inasmuch as it recognizes a distinction where there is certainly something to distinguish. For even if we take the most mechanical view of mental processes that is possible, and suppose that conscious intelligence plays no part whatever in determining action, there still remains the fact that such conscious intelligence exists, and that prior to certain actions it is always affected in certain ways. Therefore, even if we suppose that the state of things is, so to speak, accidental, and that the actions in question would always he performed in precisely the same way whether or not they were thus connected with consciousness, it would still remain desirable, for scientific purposes, that a marked distinction should be drawn between cases of activity that proceed without, and those that proceed with this remarkable association with consciousness. As the phenomena of subjectivity are facts at any rate no less real than those of objectivity, if it is found that some of the latter are invariably and faithfully mirrored in those of the former, such pheno mena, for this reason alone, deserve to be placed in a distinct scientific category, even though it were proved that the mirror of subjectivity might be removed without affecting any of the phenomena of objectivity.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    A third opinion has been suggested both by learned theologians and by geologists, and on grounds independent of one another -- viz., that the days of the Mosaic creation need not be understood to imply the same length of time which is now occupied by a single revolution of the globe, but successive periods each of great extent; and it has been asserted that the order of succession of the organic remains of a former world accords with the order of creation recorded in Genesis. This assertion, though to a certain degree apparently correct, is not entirely supported by geological facts, since it appears that the most ancient marine animals occur in the same division of the lowest transition strata with the earliest remains of vegetables, so that the evidence of organic remains, as far as it goes, shows the origin of plants and animals to have been contemporaneous: if any creation of vegetables preceded that of animals, no evidence of such an event has yet been discovered by the researches of geology. Still there is, I believe, by no sound critical or theological objection to the interpretation of the word day' as meaning a long period.' Archdeacon Pratt also summarily rejects this view as untenable:

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It is evident that, in entering upon this wider field, I shall frequently have to quit the narrower limits of direct obser vation within which my former work was confined ; and it is chiefly because I think it desirable clearly to distinguish between the objects of Comparative Psychology as a science, and any inferences or doctrines which may be connected with its study, that I have made so complete a-partition of the facts of animal intelligence from the theories which I believe these facts to justify. So much, then, for the reasons which have led to the form of these essays, and the relations which I intend the one to bear to the other. I may now say a few words to indicate the structure and scope of the present essay. Every discussion must rest on some basis of assumption ; every thesis must have some hypothesis. The hypothesis v which I shall take is that of the truth of the general theory of Evolution : I shall assume the truth of this theory so far as I feel that all competent persona of the present day will be prepared to allow me. I must therefore first define what degree of latitude I suppose to be thus conceded.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    When this new cause of controversy first arose, some writers [who were] more hasty than [they were] discreet attacked the conclusions of geologists and declared them scientifically false. This phase may now be considered past, and although school books probably continue to teach much as they did, no well-instructed person now doubts the great antiquity of the earth any more than its motion. This being so, modern theologians, forsaking the maxim of Galileo, or only using it vaguely as an occasioonal makeweight, have directed their attention to the possibility of reconciling the Mosaic narrative with those geological facts which are admitted to be beyond dispute. Several models of doing this have been proposed which have been deemed more or less satisfactory. In a textbook of theological instruction widely used, we find it stated in broad terms,'Geological investigations, it is now known, all prove the perfect harmony between scripture and geology,in reference to history of creation.'

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The Hebrew race, their works, and their books, are great facts in the history of man; the influence of the mind of this people upon the rest of mankind has been immense and peculiar, and there can be no difficulty in recognising therein the hand of a directing Providence. But we may not make ourselves wiser than God, nor attribute to Him methods of procedure which are not His. If, then, it is plain that He has not thought it needful to communicate to the writer of the Cosmogony that knowledge which modern researches have revealed, why do we not acknowledge this, except that it conflicts with a human theory which presumes to point out how God ought to have instructed man? The treatment to which the Mosaic narrative is subjected by the theological geologists is anything but respectful. The writers of this school, as we have seen, agree in representing it as a series of elaborate equivocations -- a story which palters with us in a double sense.' But if we regard it as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated in all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be then given of God's universe, it resumes the dignity and value of which the writers in question have done their utmost to deprive it. It has been sometimes felt as a difficulty to taking this view of the case, that the writer asserts so solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no authority. But this arises only from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true science has taught us. Mankind has learnt caution through repeated slips in the process of tracing out the truth.