Russell Brand, famed A-List Actor, charismatic personality, and historic womanizer, now faces a potential Life in Prison, after being convicted SOLELY from testimony.
In Juris Prudence, this is almost unheard of. A Court of Law must be objective, with EVIDENCE. Your Life is not to be adjudicated off of memory recollection in a he-said, she-said scenario.
This is NOT to exonerate Brand of potential crimes, but to showcase how we have a LACK of objectivity in our western courts.
Brand used to be an ally of The Left, but since he started criticizing The Pandemic, Vaccine Manufacturers, Politicians, and Big Corporations, he’s become a target.
His alleged crimes span 1999-2009. With only the words coming out of women’s mouths, we’ve convicted a man.
Yes, Consent is required, but context and nuance must apply. There is such a notion of ‘Implied Consent’.
We have many women, in today’s day and age, who Consent, but then retroactively WITHDRAW their Consent due to regret, remorse, and shame. This is NOT allowable under our Standard of Law.
If there were substantial evidence, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, I wouldn’t make this post, but this case was anything, BUT that.
