Blackmail vs Plea Bargaining

Hi,

 

This topic doesnt need to exist long, i was just wondering if any lawyer fold could explain the difference?

 

Channel 7 news
James Hird had been offered an ultimatum on Tuesday by the AFL.
Fall on your sword and resign and we won't charge the others.

Is that not blackmail?

 

isnt it effectively saying that:

If Hird says he is guilty - the other 3 are not guilty
If Hird says he is not guilty - the other 3 are guilty

"ill hurt your mates if you dont do what we say" ?

makes a joke of the charges against corcoran, thompson and reid

Essentially, the AFL is holding Jame's friends at ransom.
This is not a plea bargain at all.

 

The only reason why Hird and the EFC refuse to back down is because they knows the guns held at Thompsons, Reids and Corcorans heads have no bullets in them.

Essentially, the AFL is holding Jame's friends at ransom.
This is not a plea bargain at all.

 

The only reason why Hird and the EFC refuse to back down is because they knows the guns held at Thompsons, Reids and Corcorans heads have no bullets in them.

There is this, but there is also the fact that they believe that Hird also has done nothing to bring the game into disrepute and that the charges are just a load of bollocks

I'm about 98% certain that plea bargains only apply to individuals, and can't include changes to charges levied against others?

 

Then again, the AFL isn't a criminal prosecutor. This is flat out bribery/blackmail.

I'm about 98% certain that plea bargains only apply to individuals, and can't include changes to charges levied against others?

 

Then again, the AFL isn't a criminal prosecutor. This is flat out bribery/blackmail.

Plea bargains in criminal courts can involve agreeing to give evidence against other individuals.  Usually they swear a statement against the co-accused and then agree that they will give evidence in accordance with this or face being resentenced.

 

These people are usually referred to as "dogs" in legal defense circles.

Hi,

 

This topic doesnt need to exist long, i was just wondering if any lawyer fold could explain the difference?

 

Channel 7 news
James Hird had been offered an ultimatum on Tuesday by the AFL.
Fall on your sword and resign and we won't charge the others.
Is that not blackmail?

 

isnt it effectively saying that:

If Hird says he is guilty - the other 3 are not guilty
If Hird says he is not guilty - the other 3 are guilty
"ill hurt your mates if you dont do what we say" ?

 

between that and them telling Doc reid to resign or he'll be charged I think it'd pretty easy to be proven as blackmail in the real world.

l don't believe it can be called blackmail. That is usually done in private and for some gain, usually financial. This is a very public attempt to browbeat and bully someone into submission, and a very shabby and shoddy attempt it is. What the AFL is saying is do us a favour James and help us out of this mess. lf only Hird will say yes and make this whole mess go away. Well much of the mess has been made by the AFL in association with various sundry and sordid members of the media. The AFL could have put their foot down early on, instead they have had said members of the media on a drip line since the start. 

 

Essendon in general and Hird in particular have had no chance to defend themselves. We have played fair with the process by not commenting. Now at the critical moment when we are being afforded the chance to tell our side of the story, we are to be censored. StandbyHird? Stuff that ...Stickitup'emHirdy. No way will he give in to this cheap trick. Heads will possibly roll, we should start with Vlad's. 

l don't believe it can be called blackmail. That is usually done in private and for some gain, usually financial. This is a very public attempt to browbeat and bully someone into submission, and a very shabby and shoddy attempt it is. What the AFL is saying is do us a favour James and help us out of this mess. lf only Hird will say yes and make this whole mess go away. Well much of the mess has been made by the AFL in association with various sundry and sordid members of the media. The AFL could have put their foot down early on, instead they have had said members of the media on a drip line since the start. 

 

Essendon in general and Hird in particular have had no chance to defend themselves. We have played fair with the process by not commenting. Now at the critical moment when we are being afforded the chance to tell our side of the story, we are to be censored. StandbyHird? Stuff that ...Stickitup'emHirdy. No way will he give in to this cheap trick. Heads will possibly roll, we should start with Vlad's. 

Yes I think the term we are looking for is coercion, and in the eyes of the law I'm sure this is as bad as blackmailing which is simply a form of coercion..

Plea bargaining is when someone pleas guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor drops the bigger, more 'iffy' charges.

 

According to wiki: Blackmail is an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met.

 

What the AFL has done with Reid is basically like many employers do, rather than call the police or fire them, they will first give them to opportunity to fark off which usually works out better for everyone.

 

I think that if what ch7 is reporting is true, then it proves that the worst we have thought about the AFL is true, they basically just want someone to pay to satisfy the media.

 

What's positive about this is if the AFL's case against Hird was clear cut, they wouldn't care if Hird pleaded guilty or not. Trying to coerce him into pleading guilty shows they aren't that certain of the outcome.

 

If I was the media I would be ■■■■■■ that the AFL was offering a deal at all - if Corcoran/Reid/Thompson are guilty then why should they escape charges?

 

What worries me is how this will affect Hird and the club in the long run. Why the fark would he want to deal with the AFL in the future, on any level, after all this is over, even if he is cleared?

 

Can someone who's found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute remain in the Hall of Fame? Would they want? This is an incredibly black period between EFC and the AFL.

Leigh Matthews summed it up pretty well before the charges announced

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-12/afl-shouldn27t-make-a-scapegoat-out-of-essendon3a-matthews/4880992

If it is true, the AFL is acting like the Mafia - if you don’t do as you’r told, something bad will happen to your friends and family. Asolutely despicable.

It’s put in simple a ■■■■ act.

Call it coercion, blackmail or whatever, it is fundamentally "unethical" but ethics is not something the AFL concerns itself with.   When a person in a position of power tries to exploit that power to threaten or coerce by definition isn't that bullying?  If it looks like a bully, acts like a bully and smells like a bully, it is most likely a bully!  Great example to the next generation!  When push comes to shove it does not appear that we want to stop this kind of behaviour in society because the media are quite willing to not only accept it but promote it.  Makes a mockery of Brodie's Law!

It might simply be         Clutching at straws

divide and conquer - an attempt to drive a wedge.

I hope Jimmy replied to the AFL with exact same words that Doc Reid used. 

that is nothing like a plea-bargain.

 

it is blackmail, coercion whatever you call it, but it is illegal. 

Call it coercion, blackmail or whatever, it is fundamentally "unethical" but ethics is not something the AFL concerns itself with.   When a person in a position of power tries to exploit that power to threaten or coerce by definition isn't that bullying?  If it looks like a bully, acts like a bully and smells like a bully, it is most likely a bully!  Great example to the next generation!  When push comes to shove it does not appear that we want to stop this kind of behaviour in society because the media are quite willing to not only accept it but promote it.  Makes a mockery of Brodie's Law!

Yep, it sure looks like bullying to me.

This from the vic gov site-

"This video urges Victorians to make a report to police if you or someone you know is being bullied, and reminds Victorians that laws are in place to punish serious bullying by up to ten years in jail."

I wonder if 50,000 complaints would do the trick :)

After all the mistruths reported in the media over the journey, it amazed me and I questioned at the time why everyone here lapped this story up out of The Age as fact. 

Hird has confirmed in his post match interview that it wasn't true.