Courts give you options. If it fails because of their moral belief, you're kind of fucked in that regards. You play innocent and don't take the deal, can be a LOT worse. Lawyers will only do so much.
Example being... My case. They threatened me that if I did not plead guilty to selling the Mary Js, I'd go in for longer. Was a back and forth deal and I got lucky with no jail time, minus the 24 hours I already served. And no matter how many times I tried to tell them I did not do any of that, they still insisted. This is no joke.
The recordings of neighbors, I suspect it has to do with his security camera they took. Not entirely positive and am going by memory from when this first started. And they took damn near everything he owned, old and new, calling it evident because he might've paid for it with the game's money.
Anyhow, that's the last of this topic from me. I can't confirm nor deny the accusation. I only know that they lie a lot to make things look far more "evil" than they actually are.
Well, I am sorry but in normal countries courts are not about negotiations. There is no system of "sign this and this and we will reduce your penalty" You are either guilty or not. Sure, your sentence can be reduced if you admit you did wrong or because the court takes into account you have no previous offences and you regret, but there is no really "ok, admit to this and this and you will get this much, we can throw this in as a bonus, choose your package". Also in normal countries it is not normal to plant fake evidence. I don't know how Australian justice system works, but if it is a normal country aside retarded laws there is no haggling there and you admit guilty only because you know you are fucked because they have a lot of proof and there is no chance for not guilty verdict.
Also, it is important to notice two different things in the article:
1. "Judge Mullaly said although 3D-rendered, some characters in the game were “plainly pre-pubescent” and said while it did not depict real children, it fuelled demand for child abuse material involving real children."
2. "Alongside creating the game, West accessed and downloaded child abuse material containing real-life children taken from websites “at the serious and approaching the extreme end of the spectrum” the court heard.
Judge Mullaly refrained from detailing the “more grotesque” aspects of the material, other than it included “bewildering acts of rape and penetration” of children of primary school age or under the age of five."
So we can establish court acknowledged the characters in game are not considered "real children" but he still got sentenced for real stuff. He had to have something, they wouldn't straight up lie about something like this. Another thing is I looked at the page of his game now and there is not a single character that looks below five, so again, I doubt they are talking about the game.
Sure, I also hate how they focus on how evil his game is and how they describe it as "sexual predator raping kids in incestous relationship", but if you assume article is not lying there was a lot more on the plate, stuff that is way beyond the line. I don't think it's good to downplay it as "it's not that bad". If we are a community who makes a "loli games and pics are not even remotely close to real stuff at all" argument all the time, something I wholeheartedly agree with, we must cast out problematic individuals and out them as a bad people.
