Anyone been following Russell brand’s rape trial?

[Leo Gura]

He got 10+ years.

Brutal.

[r0ckyreed]

That’s unfortunate. He really turned his life around. Yes, he did some bad things in the past. But I believe he reformed. He has a YouTube channel on meditation and spirituality. He overcame drug addiction. My most controversial opinion is if someone has reformed, they should pay alimony to the victim instead of being locked up. It shouldn’t be taking these women 20+ years to come forward. I have mixed feelings on it. If he did commit those crimes, then I’m glad UK is taking it more seriously than USA and making an example out of Brand. If he has changed his ways since then, then it would be a bit unfair. I’d understand their sentencing a bit more if he was an active threat. But it seems like he isn’t. But idk his personal life if I’m being honest.

Edited 2 hours ago by r0ckyreed

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

My most controversial opinion is if someone has reformed, they should pay alimony to the victim instead of being locked up.

That sets too lax of a precedent. Rich people could commit crime, go born again Christian, and then pay alimony to stay out of prison.

He deserves prison time, just not 10 years.

[Leo Gura]

New scandal around Brand emerging:

 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

BREAKING NEWS: RUSSELL BRAND SENTENCED TO 10+ YEARS IN PRISON

ITS OFFICIAL

[integral]

13 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

BREAKING NEWS: RUSSELL BRAND SENTENCED TO 10+ YEARS IN PRISON

ITS OFFICIAL

How did they calculate this time period?

Edited 1 hour ago by integral

[Leo Gura]

Video of the judge's sentencing:

 

[Leo Gura]

But he only needs to serve 66% of the 10+ years. So he will be out in 7 years. That's more reasonable.

[Majed]

@Leo Gura Brand said he slept with thousands of women. Given that premise 6 rapes are not much. I think he got so much success with women, that the line between consent and non consent has become blurry IMO. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@r0ckyreed he raped people. 

There's no mental gymnastics you can do to get around this. I'd be thinking about the victims. He isn't one. He raped.

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Majed said:

Given that premise 6 rapes are not much.

He was only convicted of 1 rape.

But I agree he probably raped more women who we will never hear from. He probably did much worse things that we will never know. These women were the tip of the iceberg.

It is fair to say he was an abusive asshole in his heyday.

Edited 52 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[r0ckyreed]

15 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@r0ckyreed he raped people. 

There's no mental gymnastics you can do to get around this. I'd be thinking about the victims. He isn't one. He raped.

I agree. I think about both sides. The fact that it happened 20 years ago and he hasn't been offending since suggests a change. I have mixed feelings on it because I see both sides. Idk about his personal life, but if he has changed and hasn’t violated women since then, then I don’t think 10 years is justified. You lock people away when they are a threat to society. Idk if we can say he is a current threat based on the evidence.

He should get jail time but I don’t think it should be a decade. I know it takes women a lot of courage to come forward. But 20 years is too long. A person can grow so much in 20 years. There’s things I regret doing 10 years ago that I would never do again. 

If he is still womanizing people and abusing women, then I’d agree with 10 years. I also see the other argument that this will hopefully bring about good change and will be an example. If we are too lax on rape, then it isn’t stigmatized. 
 

I just wish it was more consistent. There’s a person in my hometown that raped and almost killed 3 women and he was sentenced to community service because he was only 17 years old. He should be given 10 years in jail.

Edited 49 minutes ago by r0ckyreed

[Seed]

19 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

I agree. I think about both sides. The fact that it happened 20 years ago and he hasn't been offending since suggests a change. I have mixed feelings on it because I see both sides. Idk about his personal life, but if he has changed and hasn’t violated women since then, then I don’t think 10 years is justified. You lock people away when they are a threat to society. Idk if we can say he is a current threat based on the evidence.

He should get jail time but I don’t think it should be a decade. I know it takes women a lot of courage to come forward. But 20 years is too long. A person can grow so much in 20 years. There’s things I regret doing 10 years ago that I would never do again. 

If he is still womanizing people and abusing women, then I’d agree with 10 years. I also see the other argument that this will hopefully bring about good change and will be an example. If we are too lax on rape, then it isn’t stigmatized. 

Also that fact that it wasn’t proven. so there is room for doubt upon recollection of the rape occurred and there were inconsistency in the story. 
 

the jury obviously decided he was guilty. But due the the delicate and sensitive nature of rape. It did feel like it was a trial of guilty unless proven innocent which was impossible given the amount of time gone by.

 

Edited 34 minutes ago by Seed

[r0ckyreed]

Just now, Seed said:

Also that fact that it wasn’t proven. so there is room for doubt upon recollection of the rape occurred and there were inconsistency in the story. 
 

the jury obviously decided he was guilty but due the the delicate and sensitive nature of rape. It did feel like it was a trial of guilty unless proven innocent which was impossible given the amount of time gone by.

 

I haven’t been following the case that much. But if it’s true the rape wasn’t proven and was just a “he said she said”, then that makes me frustrated. People shouldn’t be convicted based on testimony alone. Testimony’s are unreliable in court of law. There’s also a thing called “False Memory”. Women could remember the events differently and could lead to innocents being prosecuted. 

If a woman consents to sex but has sex and regrets it afterwards, that isn’t rape. If she says no and the guy forces himself on her, then it is. How do you prove Brand forced himself on her 20 years ago!!?

[Seed]

@r0ckyreed the only evidence was based on what she told people afterwards.

But she could have been embarrassed and wanted to sympathy for the pain she was in. So didn’t want to admit consenting to something like anal sex as it’s very taboo.

she met him after the gig and rimmed him which suggests she was into that sort of sex. It seems to me that the signals for mixed and she regretted / became confused / disregulated afterwards. 
 

II don’t know for sure. But that’s my doubt. 
 

He also messaged her after saying ‘let’s hook up again’ which again suggests he wasn’t aware of her perception of the experience. 
 

I don’t think she said ‘no’ 

I think she was in shock and horrified by it all. He should have been more careful and considerate. Of course. But remember the culture back then - particularly in Britain. 🇬🇧 

it was a very weird trial that’s for sure and something doesn’t feel right. 

[integral]

I've seen step-fathers raping their daughter and then when the daughter goes to the police, the police tell her that because there's no semen, there's no evidence and there's no way to convict him.

The way he's been convicted for 10 years is a bit absurd.

It's easier to convict him because he's famous and there's so much information out there about him. And so many testimonies and so on.

Edited 27 minutes ago by integral

[r0ckyreed]

You cannot rely on testimony’s. They are fallible.
 

False Memory: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3143501/

[JoshB]

@Leo Gura @Natasha Tori Maru

As terrible as this has all been, I am amazed at the fact his wife has stuck by him through all of this.