Do you assume that when a person settles a case outside of court that they are probably guilty and just don’t want the world to hear the details?

I assume the person is likely guilty, BUT I understand that might not be the case, especially for famous people.

I definitely feel the public doesn’t know all of the details and shouldn’t make a quick judgment.

Yes.

Or? Those are not mutually exclusive.

No, I do not assume. It depends. Could be one or the other, neither, or both.

In this case, I tend to assume it is both.

I think it varies tremendously. And this is particularly true for people lacking the financial means to sustain a robust defense. When it comes to rich celebrities or the wealthy upper crust, it’s almost a certain bet they’re guilty as hell.

If someone does not have the nerves or the financial means to sustain a prolonged court case, then no.
If you are rich and can afford the best lawyers, then yes.

I’ve been thinking about this since I saw it on the news earlier today. I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt. That is until he did his interview to prove his innocence and I had an OMG he’s guilty moment. Much like our politicians, he’s well trained on how to avoid or spin those pesky little questions that you’d prefer not to discuss.Then when his own Mother couldn’t find a way to cover for him, I knew he was in really big trouble

Sometimes it pays to remain silent

I usually assume that anyone settling out of court is guilty to some extent and wants to keep the sordid details from the public eye. It is the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee this year and reporting of Prince Andrew’s court proceedings would have been highly embarrassing for her.

No. I can’t make an assumption on just that point.

There are way to many court cases that are brought about that one side is trying to get something out of the other party with or without guilt on any part.
They are simply looking for a payout and the defendant simply knows the approximate attorney costs to have it go to full trial over years and years.
Conversely, one side may accept the offer because they know it will take years and significant dollars which could result in a bit fat zero.
Attorneys throw out a number to hope it settles with or without a tie to guilt.

In your reference, one side just wants to make it go away so it isn’t in the press any longer.

I’ve sat on a few civil juries, and usually a settlement is about just being done with it, with a guaranteed payout.
In the case you mentioned, I imagine there is a huge “just make it go away” factor to the settlement. I figure he probably is actually guilty of the things of which he has been accused, I remember in a much younger day there was a lot of “hushing up” going on of his questionable behaviors. They all really hoped he had settled down when he got married.

If the victim of the crime is happy about the settlement, who cares?? That’s the way the settlement ball bounces…

@Dutchess_III sounds typical of the average person in society outside a court of law.
Everybody is guilty until proven innocent.

Generally yes, especially when the elite are involved.

No.

I read some random basics of Law book awhile ago, and it said like 95% of cases are settled. Apparently the courtroom dramas you see on TV are very “rare”.
Most people don’t want to go through all those hoops, especially when litigation is a rich mans game.

If I was rich and was going to be pulled into expensive, lengthy and personal legal proceedings through the courts you bet I’d try to settle quickly and get on with my life guilty or not. Some of these things can drag on for years and completely consume your life the whole time. To hell with that. No, I don’t always assume guilt. Often I think one side simply caved to the prospect of going through this.

Nope, not even a little.

It looks like a majority of the “jury” on this question would assume guilt – and in general they would probably be right.
Technically the issue in “Giuffre v. Prince Andrew” didn’t involve criminal guilt, just a claim for damages. But cases like this one don’t settle for any amount before trial, unless the defendant believes the complaint has good odds of being proven at trial.

And as anyone following the news know by now, Guiffre & Andrew did in fact agree to an out of court resolution earlier today. Based on the reported amount of the settlement (£12 million/$16.2 million) the degree of “guilt” was substantial.

Why do so many men hang their entire lives on sex??

It’s not uncommon for innocent people to plead guilty.

@Dutchess_III Can you provide some background on your statement. It seems to be a rather sweeping statement. Perhaps a question for you to post.

Why do people hang their entire lives on anything?

@Dutchess_III Because people need something to base their self-worth on. I assure you that men don’t generally hang their entire lives on sex. Some do but the majority don’t. It may seem that way to you though. Men typically value their status and place in society much more than that.
IMO the mark of maturity is you no longer need to seek assurance through some external factor or achievement. For men this often does not happen until they are in their late 30’s or early 40’s. You may just be around a lot of immature men.

I’m not around those men.
Names that come to mind:
Clinton
Kennedy (tho his affairs were ignored)
Epstien
Trump
Harvey Weinstein 
Kevin Spacy
John Conyers
Al Franken
Garrison Keillor
Alex Kozinski
....it goes on and on and on and on.

@Dutchess_III Listing some people doesn’t justify a sexist comment saying “so many men hang their entire lives on sex”
Not Cool!

I don’t care @Forever_Free.

We don’t know for sure. But if you had to bet, the smart money would be on the “guilty” side of the scale.

Yes and yes..

I know if someone accused me of something that I didn’t do, I wouldn’t pay them any money on top of it.

Exactly @jca2.

@jca2 In general that’s what most of us think we would do. Sometimes you may just pay the ransom to get your life back.

@jca2 You would if you couldn’t prove your innocence.

@cheebdragon You don’t have to prove your innocence but . . . “if the evidence is you’re guilty with no way of proving otherwise” . . . the Queen figured that out and Prince Andrew is out of the family!

Sometimes it is insurance paying, not the person.

@Tropical_Willie….. Whoosh.

@JLeslie Even if Insurance pays out, you’re still going to end up paying something in the long run because your coverage cost is going to increase significantly.

Sometimes it’s a lazy defense attorney who convinces their client that we can take it to court but there is no way I can guarantee that you won’t come out worse off. If you take the deal, you’ll be guaranteed exactly what will happen. Logically speaking, there is comfort in knowing for sure that you won’t be paying out 100 million in place of 16 million or you’ll get to go home after court today in place of gambling on a jail sentence.The defense attorney still gets to collect their fee as if they had done their job, but they did very little work to get their client exonerated. I’ve often wondered if the defense attorney doesn’t give a kickback to the prosecutor for assisting in the ruse

@cheebdragon True.