Johnny Depp’s recent trial comes to mind – he openly admitted to doing cocaine but as far as I’m aware no action was taken
In: 5
1. They’re not under oath when they make these statements. Anyone who charges them would have to prove in court beyond reasonable they actually did the drugs at a specific time and place, and said celebrities are going to be uncooperative about confirming they did them.
2. They could have easily done them outside whatever jurisdiction decided it might be worth it to actually go after one of these cases. “I did cocaine” isn’t “I did cocaine in the jurisdiction of California”.
3. Prosecutors have discretion over cases they go after, both over whether they think they have a realistic chance of winning, whether it’s something actually worth trying to prosecute, and whether it’s in the public interest. These sorts of cases score very low on all these criteria.
/Example: Years back there was a brief “scandal” where a famous model was photographed in a nightclub with a bunch of lines of white powder on the table in front of her. The cops actually looked into it but the prosecutors decided not to bring a case as they had no way to prove what those white lines were. Like, we’re all pretty sure it’s cocaine, but there’s a lot of white powders out there.
1. They’re not under oath when they make these statements. Anyone who charges them would have to prove in court beyond reasonable they actually did the drugs at a specific time and place, and said celebrities are going to be uncooperative about confirming they did them.
2. They could have easily done them outside whatever jurisdiction decided it might be worth it to actually go after one of these cases. “I did cocaine” isn’t “I did cocaine in the jurisdiction of California”.
3. Prosecutors have discretion over cases they go after, both over whether they think they have a realistic chance of winning, whether it’s something actually worth trying to prosecute, and whether it’s in the public interest. These sorts of cases score very low on all these criteria.
/Example: Years back there was a brief “scandal” where a famous model was photographed in a nightclub with a bunch of lines of white powder on the table in front of her. The cops actually looked into it but the prosecutors decided not to bring a case as they had no way to prove what those white lines were. Like, we’re all pretty sure it’s cocaine, but there’s a lot of white powders out there.
Confessions of using drugs is not the same as murder. For a drug charge, it has to be taken and tested. What if you thought you had some drugs but it was really some fake shit and just a placebo?
Confessions of using drugs is not the same as murder. For a drug charge, it has to be taken and tested. What if you thought you had some drugs but it was really some fake shit and just a placebo?
It isn’t against the law to have taken drugs. You can’t possess them, you can’t sell them, you can’t drive or do other things while intoxicated. But there is no law against consumption. In fact, that would be an overreach of personal rights.
It isn’t against the law to have taken drugs. You can’t possess them, you can’t sell them, you can’t drive or do other things while intoxicated. But there is no law against consumption. In fact, that would be an overreach of personal rights.
Think about what the fundamental purpose of the judicial system is. Is it to ensure that everybody in society follows the same arbitrary rules? No, of course not: why would people in positions of power want that? Its main purpose is to maintain the societal order. The police are very open about the fact that they disproportionately target poor and minority communities over allegations they would not dream of pursuing if they were made about rich and powerful people. Forget “celebrities”, there have been repeated claims over the years from cleaners that they have found cocaine in Downing Street and Chequers. The police have discretion over whether to pursue these claims, and they choose not to, because their job is to protect the rich from the poor, not to protect law-abiding people from criminals. For that matter, bribery is rife at the highest levels of British politics: many politicians openly accept large salaries for allegedly doing a few hours of “consulting” work for lobbying firms. It is extremely rare for them to face any action or even investigation over this.
In the US, we have something called the “corpus delecti” or “body of the crime” rule. It’s a complicated rule, but essentially it requires that there be some evidence, beyond a mere confession, that a crime occurred. A person cannot be be convicted if their “confession” is the only evidence that the crime occurred.
It’s derived from the days when people could be called before the king, coerced into confessing to imaginary crimes, then prosecuted for crimes that likely didn’t even occur.
So, for a statement like “I was high on drugs that day,” without extrinsic evidence, there is really. nothing to prosecute.
In the US, we have something called the “corpus delecti” or “body of the crime” rule. It’s a complicated rule, but essentially it requires that there be some evidence, beyond a mere confession, that a crime occurred. A person cannot be be convicted if their “confession” is the only evidence that the crime occurred.
It’s derived from the days when people could be called before the king, coerced into confessing to imaginary crimes, then prosecuted for crimes that likely didn’t even occur.
So, for a statement like “I was high on drugs that day,” without extrinsic evidence, there is really. nothing to prosecute.
Alot of good points here but I will also add it does put them on law enforcements radar.
Comedien Artie Lange, musician Willy Nelson and many others have been raided on the suspicion they’d have drugs in their possession.
Latest Answers