British actor and comedian Russell Brand has pleaded not guilty in a London court to charges of rape and sexual assault relating to four women more than two decades ago.
To expand on this, even if you are caught dead to rights in whatever crime you’re charged with, you plead not guilty at arraignment. Because once you plead guilty, it’s over. You can always change your not guilty plea to guilty later on, if a plea deal negotiated with the prosecutor is satisfactory to you. If you just plead guilty, your ability to negotiate charges and consequences are nilch.
Any time you read “So-and-So pleads not guilty” in the news, it’s not news. It’s just what you do when you are charged with a crime.
US, that’s true. But I would expect it to be the same in the UK, since our concept of the judicial system really hasn’t diverged much, historically speaking.
I am not so convinced about this. Your system may be politicised crap with elective judiciary but at least you have a constitution. Outdated, yes but still.
I know that in the UK, the judiciary is based on the common law system. This was brought to the colonies, of course, and the judicial system in the US is a codified version of that.
But the basic judicial concepts enshrined in common law in the UK are essentially the same as the ones codified in the US.
In the UK, in general, take advice. If you’re bang to rights then a guilty plea (in court, not to the police) can affect sentencing.
Unfortunately, having said that, the UK conviction rate for rape is unbelievably low. “She liked sex ergo she deserved it” is still a line that juries are too willing to buy. It’s fucking depressing.
I don’t know much about him either apart from being a comedian but “innocent until proven guilty” applies. The same as with all the other cases where there isn’t an obvious evidence visible to the public (like for example CCTV) or a perpetrator has been cought in the act.
“Guilty until proven innocent” is a rule for the government, not for me. If you disagree, please explain your feelings about the unfair treatment of the innocent non-murderer OJ Simpson.
What would an innocent person do?
Same thing, which is why this isn’t news.
To expand on this, even if you are caught dead to rights in whatever crime you’re charged with, you plead not guilty at arraignment. Because once you plead guilty, it’s over. You can always change your not guilty plea to guilty later on, if a plea deal negotiated with the prosecutor is satisfactory to you. If you just plead guilty, your ability to negotiate charges and consequences are nilch.
Any time you read “So-and-So pleads not guilty” in the news, it’s not news. It’s just what you do when you are charged with a crime.
Out of curiosity, are you referring to the USA or does it work the same in the UK?
US, that’s true. But I would expect it to be the same in the UK, since our concept of the judicial system really hasn’t diverged much, historically speaking.
I am not so convinced about this. Your system may be politicised crap with elective judiciary but at least you have a constitution. Outdated, yes but still.
I know that in the UK, the judiciary is based on the common law system. This was brought to the colonies, of course, and the judicial system in the US is a codified version of that.
But the basic judicial concepts enshrined in common law in the UK are essentially the same as the ones codified in the US.
In the UK, in general, take advice. If you’re bang to rights then a guilty plea (in court, not to the police) can affect sentencing.
Unfortunately, having said that, the UK conviction rate for rape is unbelievably low. “She liked sex ergo she deserved it” is still a line that juries are too willing to buy. It’s fucking depressing.
Not be convicted of rape, most likely.
He hasn’t been convincted, no?
I’m sorry, I didn’t really care enough about the guy to look. I was just being facetious in response to the question.
I don’t know much about him either apart from being a comedian but “innocent until proven guilty” applies. The same as with all the other cases where there isn’t an obvious evidence visible to the public (like for example CCTV) or a perpetrator has been cought in the act.
Yes, I know and I agree. Again, I was being facetious in response to the question.
👍
Not be Russel Brand.
“Guilty until proven innocent” is a rule for the government, not for me. If you disagree, please explain your feelings about the unfair treatment of the innocent non-murderer OJ Simpson.
The rule is “innocent until proven guilty” lol
Give me the man and I’ll give you the crime. Oh f- no wait!