Thats not an absolute, but yea acceptance of guilt does has a heavy weighting with the Parole Board and maintaining innocence will make it much harder to get released. It does lead to terribly perverse catch 22/loopholes for innocent people wrongly convicted.
-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
Russell Brand.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
Thats not an absolute, but yea acceptance of guilt does has a heavy weighting with the Parole Board and maintaining innocence will make it much harder to get released. It does lead to terribly perverse catch 22/loopholes for innocent people wrongly convicted.
Yep. Though she can only give evidence as to his character now, as a 40+ yo man who is clean and sober. Not as he was back then, with his self confessed sex and drugs addictions and impulsive lack of control character.
In general that could be, not specifically in this case though.
Tbh, I think he's "as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo" but I dont think he was a sexual predator like say, Saville or Weinstein.
Its more like the Trump "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab 'em by the *****. You can do anything."
Brand was famous, attractive (to a lot of women) and had women throwing themselves at him, which ends up giving him the distorted view that all women are available. Combined with his self confessed sex and drugs addictions, lack of impulse control, its not really a stretch to think that he didnt always take no for an answer.
But whether he will be found guilty or not is obviously not certain, the jury still have to decide if the allegations are beyond reasonable doubt. The biggest thing against him imo is the number of what seems completely independent allegations over quite a period of time.
I think the damning thing is e.g. the 1 victim that had concensual vaginal sex but then Brand (allegedly) anally raped her. She didn't provide consent to that. That is still rape. Given his behaviors, self-admitted addictions, is he deemed sufficiently probably guilty - almost certainly IMO. Likewise some of the sexual assault charges are groping, which seems entirely realistic for his character.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,265
- Location
- London, UK
Day 15 of the trial. Prosecution summary. Monday with be the defence summary and then closing arguments.
More likely he just got confused with the US naming of it. At the end of the day plea deals and reduced sentencing for pleading guilty amount to the same thing, a strong incentive for innocent people to plead guilty.
Last edited:
In which case his legal counsel was rubbish. I fear you are arguing for the sake of it.
I don't follow, why would it be the fault of his legal counsel if he mistakenly told people it was a plea deal?
Pleading guilty to being a sex offender when you're innocent, can't see that being a common occurance tbh.
A weird random direction for the thread to have gone in, as last time I looked, Brand has pleaded not guilty anyway.
A weird random direction for the thread to have gone in, as last time I looked, Brand has pleaded not guilty anyway.
Must admit I have always thought was the most likely explanation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,265
- Location
- London, UK
You don't plead guilty to being a nonce if you are innocent. Pleading guilty means that is it, no take backs (well unless you can prove you were coerced), its with you for life. If you fight it in court and lose you always have a chance to overturn the conviction later.
As others have said we don't use that horrific system they use in the US, where they over charge and then offering a plea deal. All you can get here is a mitigation when the judge comes to sentencing. If you plead guilty straight away you get the maximum benefit when it comes to sentencing. If you fight and lose then you don't receive anything.
It makes sense to offer the defendant a chance to plead guilty early and avoid the time/expense of a trial and any witnesses from have to testify and perhaps relive something horrific.
If you were innocent of this would you plead guilty and carry that for life or would you fight it? I know what I'd do.
Yes. It started as a relevant point regarding people not standing up for someone accused of such crimes, but seems to have got a bit fixated on legal details of a case I mentioned.
Last edited:
If my solicitor advised me that I'd very likely avoid prison by pleading guilty, but if I pleaded not guilty there'd be a good chance of going to prison and getting a criminal record anyway, then without doubt I'd choose the no prison option.
I just try to look at things objectively without any bias. It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for someone to plead guilty with no incentive to do so simply because they wanted to own up to it, and then go around telling people they're innocent and only pleaded guilty to avoid prison. The most plausible explanation is that he was telling the truth in that he avoided prison for pleading guilty.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,265
- Location
- London, UK
You are believing the guy. I would look at objectively that he is guilty and he pled guilty because his barrister told him they'd got him bang to rights. No shortage of people claiming they are innocent even after pleading guilty. Especially when the crime is so heinous.
You say that, but look on these forums. It's always no smoke without a fire etc etc. And I know a person who did just that, went to court to prove his innocence. He won, not only did he win, but the accusers admitted it was all made up. His life was still ruined. His house was always been vandalised with graffiti, stuff put in his letter box etc. etc. He lost his job and couldn't find work. He tried moving to another town, but same happened there. So in the end He had to leave the country.
You carry something like this for life even if you are proved innocent.
I don't know what the answer is. But I can understand why somebody who is innocent might plead guilty without going to any kind of trial.
That's the exact opposite of looking at it objectively, pleading guilty doesn't make someone guilty, and you don't know that they had him bang to rights if the images were on a shared computer that his bitter ex wife had access to.
Yes it really does. You have put on record that you accept you accept you committed the crime.
Or that could have just been an excuse, because no one wants to admit they have been looking at kiddie stuff. To be honest I'm not sure how discovery came about in this case (I do have a Gary Glitter story, but will stay vaguely on topic) or what access his ex wife even had to his computer. What I do know is that he said he had been charged, then for however long it took to get to trial (could have been a year) he swore he was 100% innocent and would clear his name in court. Then when it came to it he pleaded guilty.
I didn't think spouses could give evidence for or against each other.
No, saying that you committed the crime isn't going to change whether you are actually guilty of committing the crime or not.
Where did you get that from?
I think it's normal that you can't compel one spouse to testify against the other, but I believe in England there are even exceptions to that for some serious crimes.
As I said at the beginning, innocent until proven guilty. Once you plead guilty (unless done under duress) then as far as the world is concerned, you did it.