OBJECTIVE Alford pleas allow defendants to profess innocence while simultaneously pleading guilty. In Study 1, we addressed two research questions: (1) Does the case processing length in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? and (2) Do the sentencing outcomes (i.e., length of sentence, reduction in sentence, incarceration) in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? In Study 2, we explored two research questions: (1) What is the process for offering, negotiating, and accepting Alford pleas? and (2) How does the strength of evidence compare in Alford plea cases versus traditional guilty plea cases? HYPOTHESES In Study 1, we predicted that (a) Alford plea cases would take longer to dispose of than traditional guilty plea cases, and (b) Alford plea cases would receive more beneficial sentencing outcomes (e.g., shorter sentences, larger sentence reductions) than traditional guilty plea cases. The research questions in Study 2 were exploratory; thus, we did not have a priori hypotheses. METHOD Study 1 is a quantitative analysis of 18 years of Virginia court administrative data, and Study 2 is a qualitative analysis of interviews with Virginia judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. RESULTS In Study 1, we found that Alford plea cases take longer to process and generally receive harsher, less favorable outcomes compared with traditional guilty pleas. In Study 2, we found that legal actors do not perceive evidence to be a driving factor in the context of Alford pleas and largely do not consider Alford pleas differently from traditional guilty pleas. CONCLUSIONS Additional research would be beneficial to ensure that defendants are not punished simply for insisting on their innocence. Given that almost all convictions are the result of guilty pleas, some entered without admissions of guilt, increased scholarship on traditional and Alford pleas is essential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

弗吉尼亚·奥尔福德的抗辩接受者比传统的抗辩接受者经历了更严厉的结果。


目标 奥尔福德的抗辩允许被告在承认有罪的同时自称无罪。在研究一中，我们解决了两个研究问题：（1）奥尔福德认罪案件的案件处理长度与传统认罪案件有何不同？ （2）奥尔福德认罪案件的量刑结果（即刑期、减刑、监禁）与传统认罪案件有何不同？在研究 2 中，我们探讨了两个研究问题：（1）提出、谈判和接受阿尔福德请求的过程是什么？ (2) 奥尔福德认罪案件与传统认罪案件的证据强度如何？假设 在研究 1 中，我们预测 (a) 阿尔福德认罪案件比传统认罪案件需要更长的时间来处理，(b) 阿尔福德认罪案件将比传统认罪案件获得更有利的量刑结果（例如，更短的刑期、更大的减刑）。传统的认罪案件。研究 2 中的研究问题是探索性的；因此，我们没有先验假设。方法 研究1是对弗吉尼亚州法院18年行政数据的定量分析，研究2是对弗吉尼亚州法官、检察官和辩护律师访谈的定性分析。结果在研究 1 中，我们发现与传统认罪相比，奥尔福德认罪案件需要更长的时间来处理，并且通常会收到更严厉、更不利的结果。在研究 2 中，我们发现法律行为者并不认为证据是奥尔福德抗辩中的驱动因素，并且在很大程度上并不认为奥尔福德抗辩与传统的有罪抗辩有什么不同。结论 额外的研究将有助于确保被告不会仅仅因为坚称自己无罪而受到惩罚。 鉴于几乎所有定罪都是认罪的结果，有些人没有认罪，因此增加对传统认罪和阿尔福德认罪的研究至关重要。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。