The Predicament of the Alford Plea

Henry Alford was accused of murder and was facing the death penalty at trial. Despite maintaining his innocence, in order to avoid the death penalty, Alford admitted guilt and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was then sentenced to 30 years in prison. Alford continued to maintain his innocence and appealed the plea requesting a new trial – he argued that he was forced to accept the guilty plea because he was afraid of a jury giving him a death sentence. In response, the Supreme Court created a new type of plea, referred to as an “Alford plea” in which a defendant can accept a plea bargain without admitting guilt. Instead, the defendant can maintain their innocence while admitting there is enough evidence to convict.

            Alford pleas create a moral Catch-22 when thinking about innocent defendants. On the one hand, if there is enough evidence to convict, accepting a plea gives the innocent defendant the benefit of avoiding trial and a reduction in punishment while still upholding their moral value of proclaiming innocence. On the other hand, an innocent person is still being subjected to punishment and corresponding collateral consequences of having a record.

In “The Psychological Allure of Alford: Does Wanting to Appear Innocent Put Innocents at Risk?”, Hellgren and colleagues (2025) conducted two studies to experimentally examine how people would react to a plea deal based on their guilt status (guilty or innocent of the hypothetical crime) and the type of plea offered (traditional or Alford). The first study sought to understand whether innocent or guilty participants accused of manslaughter would be more or less likely to accept a traditional or Alford plea. Those who were guilty had a higher likelihood of accepting a plea overall, but their decision was not influenced by whether the plea was an Alford or traditional – meaning it did not matter whether participants had to admit guilt to accept the plea. Alarmingly, almost a quarter of the innocent subjects plead guilty regardless of plea type.

The second study was focused on better understanding Alford pleas in a more realistic progression. All participants were told they were innocent but being accused of theft and were offered a traditional plea. If they denied, they were then given the option of an Alford plea which would allow them to maintain their innocence. Researchers found that participants were more likely to accept the Alford plea compared to the traditional plea – they wanted the benefits of the plea, but did not want to admit guilt when they were innocent.

With all this information in mind, why does guilt status matter to an Alford plea deal?

This has more to do with a defendant’s self-image and how they want others to perceive their character. There is often discomfort when others’ perceptions of do not align with how we see ourselves. That is the deceptive appeal of the Alford plea – the “bargain” part of a plea bargain along with the ability to maintain innocence. However, the problem arises at conviction. While maintaining innocence is often seen as a benefit, defendants still face the same repercussions as if they were to admit guilt. Overall, the public does not have a good understanding of all the rights you give up when accepting a guilty plea, and Alford pleas can cause even more confusion. This study shows how a desire to maintain a positive image can really impact a defendants’ choices – innocent defendants may be particularly drawn to Alford pleas. But again, herein arises the moral Catch-22: do we want innocent people to have the same opportunities to avoid trial or do we want them to not agree to punishment?