Abstract
AbstractWhen a defendant pleads guilty to a criminal charge against them their conviction may be justified on the basis of autonomy rather than accuracy. In this context, autonomy can make the difference between a legitimate conviction and the breach of fundamental rights. However, autonomy in this context is not clearly defined. This article argues, based on philosophical conceptions of autonomy and empirical realities, that true autonomy is an ideal rather than a practical reality. It considers the level of autonomy necessary to legitimise a criminal conviction via plea, and suggests that current conceptions of autonomy are inadequate since they rely on a formalistic autonomy ‘myth’, presuming autonomy in the absence of threats. An analysis drawing on original empirical data from two studies demonstrates how autonomy may be being depleted to unacceptable levels in the current system. The article concludes by presenting reform proposals.
Highlights
When a defendant in the criminal justice system decides to plead guilty this constitutes a waiver of their right to a full trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The importance of autonomy in legitimising plea decisions is consistent with jurisprudence in the ECHR context where there is no requirement for a plea to be an accurate indication of guilt, but a plea must be ‘established in an unequivocal manner, and be given in full knowledge of the facts, that is to say on the basis of informed consent ... and without constraint ...’16 The requirement of informed consent without constraint is closely tied to the concept of autonomy, since consent is typically viewed as a form of autonomous choice, aimed at authorisation.[17]
It is reasonable to say that defendants themselves should be able to avoid a full trial and accept their status as a convicted person if that is what they want to do, provided this decision is driven by their own values relating to that ‘core’ plea decision.[112]
Summary
When a defendant in the criminal justice system decides to plead guilty this constitutes a waiver of their right to a full trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The prosecution is no longer required to prove that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and their status automatically changes to that of a convicted person. It is not required that a guilty plea be shown to be an accurate admission of guilt, or even reliable evidence of guilt. As Jeremy Horder states in Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law: ‘A guilty plea may be accepted more or less at face value, as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the allegation in question. Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law (Oxford: OUP, 9th ed, 2019) 11.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
