Originally Posted by Strange Famous

And I repeat that there are no mitigating factors to be considered if Brown is found guilty or confesses.

I understand what the word mitigation means, and it is a relative concept. There is no fact which Brown can state regarding his situation which is relivant in relation to the crime committed.

For example, being a drug addict might be relavant to theft charges, because the person's sickness drove them to steal.

Trying to get clean might be relevant to drugs charges, because the person is facing up to their problems.

These are mitigating factors.

In relation to the level of violence which this brute exercised against a defenceless young woman, there is no fact which is of sufficient relavance IN RELATION TO THE DISGUSTING NATURE OF THE CRIME wich can be considered mitigation.

This wasnt the first time, she wasnt "asking for it" because of something she said about him having other girls phone numbers, he is not genuinely sorry because if so he would have plea bargained already and asked for 10 years rather than the five he'll get.

Brown has no excuse for these crimes, and there is no mitigating factors. The seriousness of the crime does not allow for any.

The majority of people want to see him do serious time - if he gets only 1 year, what message does this send to the women of America? That the state will allow a thug to beat a woman close to unconsciousness and only give a light sentence because it is a "petty crime"? I would expect this under the Taleban regime in Afghanistan, not in the worlds greatest power - what would this say about American justice. No, this is not good enough. He must face a real sentence and he must be made an example of. The fact that these crimes were carried out in the public eye means that the public demands absolute justice.

He should be facing whatever the US equivalent is to GBH with Intent, and then he would be glad to plea down to five years.