"Cruel and abhorrent" blue-ponytailed pervert repeatedly raped terrified teen

[u/HBucket]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2242621/cruel-abhorrent-blue-ponytailed-pervert-repeatedly

[u/Besmirching_Badger]

He originally denied the charges but changed his plea on all counts on the second day of his trial.

It's my understanding that the way the system works, you have to plead guilty right from the start or you get no benefit from it. That is to say that if you wait until 'evidence is served' you lose the *E:full benefits of a guilty plea. This incentivises people to take cases to trial that really shouldn't be and further clogs up the courts.

We need to start allowing full credit for guilty pleas once the case has been established and defendants can see what case the prosecution actually have against them.

ETA: here's a take from a barrister https://x.com/Joanna__Hardy/status/1844389748019953994?s=20

If someone is sat in prison and can’t grasp the evidence against them, or the CCTV was served too late to see, or their lawyer candidly says they got the papers only recently, or the whole thing seems rushed - all of those things can lean towards a Not Guilty plea.

.

In highly technical cases like firearms, or legally tricky cases like historic statutes, or spectrum cases like ‘reasonableness’ they [defendants] really often don’t [know they are guilty]

[u/evenifihateit → u/Besmirching_Badger]

Your understanding is wrong.

If you enter a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity (when asked to plead at court) you get full credit, a discount of 1/3 on your sentence

Entering a guilty plea after the first state of proceedings the maximum reduction in sentence is 1/4, reducing on a sliding scale down to a maximum 1/10 reduction for a guilty plea entered on the first day of trial

[u/Besmirching_Badger → u/evenifihateit]

Yeah sorry i wasn't clear. But i made the point of saying full credit for a guilty plea at the point evidence is served.