I was wondering if somebody is charged with a crime does it mean the same thing as being convicted of a crime. There are two women running for Governor in New Mexico. One woman is accusing the other of being soft on criminals. She uses the term "charged" with a sex crimes in one of her ads and goes on to say that her opponent cut deals so that these men (who were charged) didn't have to register as 'sex offenders'. Why didn't she use the term 'convicted' if they were? I'm curious.

In being "charged" its not the same as a conviction. Lets say they thought they could "charge " a person with a crime. Now to take it to trial etc cousts thousands of dollars. But the person "charged" makes a plea bargin for a lessor "charge". So lets say the crime goes from a first degree offense to a second degree offense. And the person pleads guilty to the lessor crime and is sentenced.

As you can see in that example given you can be "charged" with one thing and "convicted" of another thing.

Hope that makes sense for you now.

Thanks! It is sort of what I was thinking. Gosh! I hate dirty politics and those sleezy ads they run.

Thanks! It is sort of what I was thinking. Gosh! I hate dirty politics and those sleezy ads they run.

Me too. But your ahead of the game by asking questions and seeking out answers to make an informed decision. Congrats to you.

Welcome to AMHD.

Also remember plea agreements is the norm in every state, No US court could ever actually take even 1/2 of the people arrested to trial. Having them plead out is the expected in most criminal cases.

And in some sex crimes, it really makes sense. A 17 year old boy caught with his 16 year old girlfriend having oral sex. Do you want that boy to be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life ? In most states he would be.

Or a man who decides to urinate behind a bush at a park or a building. ( OK more common in the rural area) but if they are "seen" guess what many states makes them a sex felon