|
Fritz the Horse posted:Hey so, can I talk about the drug-laden sexual violence I and my friends experienced in the Hollywod Hills in the early 2010s I don't see why not
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Calling an understandably emotional response after a miscarriage of justice a "shitpost" seems a different meaning of shitpost than one I'm aware of. If a mod thinks that's not content enough, it'd be nice if they could politely indicate that instead of just jump in and probe. Anyway, I'm interested, Fritz the Horse. I have family and friends of family who went through some bad stuff in LA but most of that was in the 80s/90s, so it'd be interesting to see how it's... progressed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Yeah those probes weren't necessary, I'll ask Ralph to lay off a bit on people venting in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Maybe don't try to make a mountain out of every loving molehill?  You spent a lot of time in the earlier weeks of this thread casting aspersions on Reade and her "perjury," maintaining that Russia was forcing her to lie, then pretending that you were worried about Reade's safety. If I were you I'd take a seat and think hard about whether you should still be posting in this thread, given both your prior posts in this thread and the convos in QCS we've had about this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Hey so, can I talk about the drug-laden sexual violence I and my friends experienced in the Hollywod Hills in the early 2010s Yes, please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm normally a very "it's better to let 10 guilty men free than send one innocent man to jail" person but this is not that. While the courts are writing special snowflake opinions that you can do crimes The Kingfish posted:I'm normally a very "it's better to let 10 guilty men free than send one innocent man to jail" person unless I disagree with the Court’s decision. IMO reasoning like "better to let 10 guilty men free than one innocent to jail" shouldn't apply to people with significant wealth and/or power. It's a reasoning (correctly) meant to protect those without power from powerful people/institutions, so it doesn't really make sense to apply it to the wealthy/powerful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:IMO reasoning like "better to let 10 guilty men free than one innocent to jail" shouldn't apply to people with significant wealth and/or power. It's a reasoning (correctly) meant to protect those without power from powerful people/institutions, so it doesn't really make sense to apply it to the wealthy/powerful. It doesn't make sense to apply it exclusively to the not wealthy/not powerful either. It's legitimately a good concept. The issue is that we're not letting 10 guilty men free to save one innocent person from imprisonment, we're just letting one guilty man go free for shits and giggles at this point and not really helping the innocent. It's absolutely correct to be angry about that. If this judgement is cited as precedent, successfully, in other cases where prosecutors do dodgy things, and it saves innocent people from getting hosed over... that might be a fair tradeoff even if I'm pissed to see Cosby free in any case. I don't trust that will happen. We have to hold two conflicting opinions in our head at once: first, that Cosby is absolutely a piece of poo poo who is factually guilty of the crimes he was accused of; secondly, that there was arguably prosecutorial misconduct (as there is every day in any number of cases, and we should be upset about that too). What we need to do is expand the remedy for prosecutorial misconduct beyond the privileged, not simply allow it to occur. People suspected of a crime are occasionally guilty of a crime, and they still have rights regardless of whether they committed the crime they're accused of. It doesn't matter if you killed someone, it doesn't matter if you raped someone, it doesn't matter if you're a trash human being who deserves to die in prison, the state must prove their case legally and beyond a reasonable doubt. That must be the standard we expect and demand for prosecution in all cases, without exception.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Of course in this case the state isn't given an opportunity to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, because even if you accept the dubious reasoning that Cosby's depositions were a violation of his rights, the usual remedy is retrying the case and excluding the evidence, not just going "welp no consequences for rape then".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Of course in this case the state isn't given an opportunity to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, because even if you accept the dubious reasoning that Cosby's depositions were a violation of his rights, the usual remedy is retrying the case and excluding the evidence, not just going "welp no consequences for rape then". Yes and no. If it were anyone but a prominent, prolific rapist that everyone rightly hates, I think people would be saying "the government was naughty, they shouldn't get a mulligan."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes and no. If it were anyone but a prominent, prolific rapist that everyone rightly hates, I think people would be saying "the government was naughty, they shouldn't get a mulligan." if it were anyone but a prominent, prolific rapist, the verdict wouldn't be overturned though
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:if it were anyone but a prominent, prolific rapist, the verdict wouldn't be overturned though Bingo! But that's why we should look at the deeper systemic problems instead of saying "this decision was bad." The problem isn't a system that gives this outcome to Cosby, per se; rather, the problem is a system that gives this outcome only to Cosby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Bingo! But that's why we should look at the deeper systemic problems instead of saying "this decision was bad." The problem isn't a system that gives this outcome to Cosby, per se; rather, the problem is a system that gives this outcome only to Cosby. I'll admit, I'm not clear on why this seems like a worthwhile distinction? It sounds like you want the system to forgive poor rapists as well, and I know that can't be what you meant
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I'll admit, I'm not clear on why this seems like a worthwhile distinction? Because any defendant in the criminal justice system deserves a fair trial where the prosecution acts completely above board. Guilty people and innocent people both get their rights violated from time to time, and it doesn't become acceptable because someone is factually guilty of a crime. Sometimes, as in this case, it results in a horrible person getting away with committing a serious crime. That loving sucks, I'm not going to pretend otherwise, but it's not the correct answer to say "well, it's okay if the person really deserves it."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Because any defendant in the criminal justice system deserves a fair trial where the prosecution acts completely above board. I mean I get what you're saying but since the system is inherently balanced in the favor of the rich and powerful and there are few if any reforms that are on the actual table to rectifying this chastising people for being mad that the guilty rapist is going to experience no consequences (again) seems kind of counter intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:IMO reasoning like "better to let 10 guilty men free than one innocent to jail" shouldn't apply to people with significant wealth and/or power. It's a reasoning (correctly) meant to protect those without power from powerful people/institutions, so it doesn't really make sense to apply it to the wealthy/powerful. And then what? What's your remedy beyond "the rules should be bent the other way now"? If you explicitly impose less favorable standards to the people most able to dismantle the system, you will not get to keep that system for very long. So what's your solution to that problem?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
I alluded to this in my last CosbyCourt post. As it happens in Cosby's case there was a possible response that doesn't go the full "people above x net worth are stripped of major criminal trial rights": his horde of expensive lawyers should have been able to discern, and inform him of, and argue in court, the exact binding nature or lack thereof of Castor's massive dumbassery. I still don't hate the "fine just declare a mistrial and exclude his civil deposition from the next one" proposition, structurally, but there's a very plausible argument for "your lawyers should have been able to argue the forced testimony thing, sucks to be you". John_A_Tallon posted:And then what? What's your remedy beyond "the rules should be bent the other way now"? If you explicitly impose less favorable standards to the people most able to dismantle the system, you will not get to keep that system for very long. So what's your solution to that problem? While I'm curious about the proposed remedy, fear of retaliation by the wealthy is not high on my list of reasons to preserve the notional underlying assumptions of the justice system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:I mean I get what you're saying but since the system is inherently balanced in the favor of the rich and powerful and there are few if any reforms that are on the actual table to rectifying this chastising people for being mad that the guilty rapist is going to experience no consequences (again) seems kind of counter intuitive. I'm not chastising anyone for being mad the lovely guilty rapist is out. I'm mad at that too. What I'm doing is drawing a distinction between being mad at the outcome (completely normal and justifiable) and being mad at the decision that led to it. Accused criminals have rights, and those rights must be respected. Some people are falsely accused of crimes, but many, like Cosby, are not -- they are fully guilty of the crimes they are accused of. This does not grant leave to violate their rights, nor does it excuse, after the fact, the violation of any of their rights simply because they are factually guilty. That principle is going to lead to a lot of decisions that piss me and a lot of other people off, I understand that. Guilty people will go free as a result. That doesn't mean it's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not chastising anyone for being mad the lovely guilty rapist is out. I'm mad at that too. What I'm doing is drawing a distinction between being mad at the outcome (completely normal and justifiable) and being mad at the decision that led to it. Accused criminals have rights, and those rights must be respected. Some people are falsely accused of crimes, but many, like Cosby, are not -- they are fully guilty of the crimes they are accused of. This does not grant leave to violate their rights, nor does it excuse, after the fact, the violation of any of their rights simply because they are factually guilty. Again. This is only a defense of rich people rights. The system manifestly does not work. Holding to a principle only makes sense if that principle is universally applicable. A poor innocent or guilty person will simply not be befitting from this. PT6A posted:That principle is going to lead to a lot of decisions that piss me and a lot of other people off, I understand that. Guilty people will go free as a result. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Well a bit more negative outcomes than "pissing people off" pretty good chance this kills off the last shreds of metoo as well as just making survivors being even less likely to report.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not chastising anyone for being mad the lovely guilty rapist is out. I'm mad at that too. What I'm doing is drawing a distinction between being mad at the outcome (completely normal and justifiable) and being mad at the decision that led to it. Accused criminals have rights, and those rights must be respected. Some people are falsely accused of crimes, but many, like Cosby, are not -- they are fully guilty of the crimes they are accused of. This does not grant leave to violate their rights, nor does it excuse, after the fact, the violation of any of their rights simply because they are factually guilty. From this post and your others, wouldn't your entire train of logic be predicated on the idea that the justice system works? And therefore Stuff You Said would make sense? The distinctions you're concerned about seem like they're important only if you had a certain level of buy-in to the system. I'm trying to walk your logic backwards but am having trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Again. This is only a defense of rich people rights. The system manifestly does not work. Holding to a principle only makes sense if that principle is universally applicable. A poor innocent or guilty person will simply not be befitting from this. 1) What is the alternative? That this appeal is denied, and it becomes precedent that this sort of behaviour is acceptable on the part of the prosecution? I don't think that's a good result in general either, even if it would result in the one-time excellent resolution of "lovely rapist Bill Cosby remaining in prison." 2) This whole situation absolutely is harmful to those who've experienced sexual assault. But it ain't just this decision; rather, it's the actions of the state, which were found to be unacceptable in this case. Why are we yelling at this decision when we should be yelling at an exceptionally questionable decision to possibly deprive Cosby of his guaranteed rights under the 5th amendment? We can't allow for an "oopsie!" when a criminal defendants rights are found to be violated. It's the responsibility of the state to guarantee those rights, even when those rights belong to a complete piece of poo poo like Bill Cosby. thehandtruck posted:From this post and your others, wouldn't your entire train of logic be predicated on the idea that the justice system works? And therefore Stuff You Said would make sense? The distinctions you're concerned about seem like they're important only if you had a certain level of buy-in to the system. I'm trying to walk your logic backwards but am having trouble. No, I don't think it works in practice. I think it's a deeply imperfect system, but I think it can be improved and fixed. We don't get there by squinting at the rules to achieve the outcomes we want. This is now precedent, and the next time some shady prosecutor pulls a bullshit maneuver like this, a defense attorney can say "no, in PA vs. Cosby, that was ruled unacceptable" and maybe the next time a prosecutor even considers some bullshit like that, they'll think better of it. There are some absolute garbage judgements in the history of US criminal law, like "I want a lawyer, dawg" does not constitute a request for counsel. This one, I'm upset that it set a rapist free, but I don't think it's an incorrect judgement on the basis of the law. Now, of course, how the law relates to rich defendants versus poor defendants is a whole, huge drat issue. That's the battle that's worth fighting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:While I'm curious about the proposed remedy, fear of retaliation by the wealthy is not high on my list of reasons to preserve the notional underlying assumptions of the justice system. I am not even talking retaliation. The privileged have rammed through changes to the law for less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Bingo! But that's why we should look at the deeper systemic problems instead of saying "this decision was bad." The problem isn't a system that gives this outcome to Cosby, per se; rather, the problem is a system that gives this outcome only to Cosby. This outcome seems bad even if our justice system were equitable, what's the argument for not just excluding the testimony and retrying the case?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 04:24
|
|
|
I imagine it would be pretty difficult to find jurors who don't already have a strongly held opinion on Cosby's conviction, and a lot of them would probably have heard the information that would have to be excluded since the case got so much coverage. Like clearly in the interest of justice the case should have gone to a retrial but I genuinely don't know how the court system does or should deal with that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This outcome seems bad even if our justice system were equitable, what's the argument for not just excluding the testimony and retrying the case? Two points: 1) Let's imagine for a moment this were not known shithead rapist Bill Cosby: do you think they could receive a fair trial given the circumstances? I doubt that's possible, given the situation, and it's always going to be an open question for a future appeal. 2) Is it wrong that the "punishment" for the violation of a defendant's rights is that the conviction is thrown out? This is sort of getting out of the subject matter of the thread and into criminal justice reform, but let's imagine for a second that we're not talking about the rapist Bill Cosby, and instead talking about some random guy convicted of... murder. Let's say he did it, and we know he did it. If his rights were violated in the process of the investigation and trial leading to his conviction, should he still be imprisoned? You could absolutely argue that, yes, as someone who factually speaking murdered another person, he must face the consequences. What, then, is the purpose of those rights? That's how I can be both perfectly loving angry at the specific outcome that Bill Cosby is free, and not angry with the decision of the court that the prosecution acted improperly. The system has failed. A rapist is free. That's not good, and we should be angry about that. But that doesn't mean this decision was incorrect. In my opinion, it means the prosecution hosed up unforgivably, in a way that allowed a rapist to go free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I imagine it would be pretty difficult to find jurors who don't already have a strongly held opinion on Cosby's conviction, and a lot of them would probably have heard the information that would have to be excluded since the case got so much coverage. Like clearly in the interest of justice the case should have gone to a retrial but I genuinely don't know how the court system does or should deal with that kind of thing. I'm not so convinced it would be impossible, at least with regards to the excluded information. Like when I was talking about the conviction being overturned with people I'd say the vast majority weren't even aware there was a civil trial or at most barely remembered it (fifteen years is a long time). They sure as hell didn't remember Cosby's deposition or the details therein. Even for the criminal trial I think less people followed it close enough to be exposed to the fine details like the deposition evidence than you might think. I'm pretty certain you could find twelve people in all of Pennsylvania who didn't follow the trial at all. Difficult maybe, but achievable. It would have been nice for them to at least try. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jul 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, I don't think it works in practice. I think it's a deeply imperfect system, but I think it can be improved and fixed. Ok that's the um...divergence I was gathering from the tone of your posts. If you think it can improved and fixed then your statements are logical since as you've put it, "What other choice is there? [If we want to preserve the system]" But like someone else pointed out, it manifestly does not work. It can't be improved or fixed. Any "improvement" that closes a loophole is theatrical as three new holes will be opened up. And maybe there's an inverse way to say this: the system works flawlessly, if you're rich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
Presumably the solution is to actually protect defendants who aren't cosby rich rather than throwing out the rules protecting the rights of defendants
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 04:55
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I imagine it would be pretty difficult to find jurors who don't already have a strongly held opinion on Cosby's conviction, and a lot of them would probably have heard the information that would have to be excluded since the case got so much coverage. Like clearly in the interest of justice the case should have gone to a retrial but I genuinely don't know how the court system does or should deal with that kind of thing. PT6A posted:Two points: This sounds a lot like rich and famous men not being able to be prosecuted for heinous crimes. The more famous you are, the harder it is to find jurors, so I guess if you're famous enough you're untouchable. Is that how it works? Hang on a sec, I'm being informed that, ah yes yes okay I see, ok I've just been informed rich and famous men are basically untouchable and can rape without consequences. The system works! Anyway this seems like bullshit, they were able to convict Timothy McVeigh right. Nobody was like "oh well he's too infamous for what he did, let him go then!" it seems like when people in charge want to prosecute someone it happens, and when they don't suddenly convicting anyone of anything is logistically impossible. PT6A posted:2) Is it wrong that the "punishment" for the violation of a defendant's rights is that the conviction is thrown out? This kind of thing happens all the time, cops do an illegal search, or illegally obtain testimony or whatever, and if the defendant is affluent enough to afford a lawyer better than our unfunded PD system (or they get lucky and get a great PD), the illegally obtained evidence is thrown out and the state has to make its case without it? What's wrong with that? You seem reluctant to answer this question. And again I don't really agree Cosby's rights were violated at all, but even if they were, the "remedy" is absurd, certainly not the kind of thing that usually happens to people who can afford lawyers, but don't have gently caress-you money to hire the judge's Harvard frat buddies or golfing partner or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Presumably the solution is to actually protect defendants who aren't cosby rich rather than throwing out the rules protecting the rights of defendants Nobody is saying throw out the rules protecting the rights of all defendants
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 05:37
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Presumably the solution is to actually protect defendants who aren't cosby rich rather than throwing out the rules protecting the rights of defendants Unless you are proposing nationalizing lawyers (all of them) this is not possible. Even assuming public defenders were able to defend a client to the equivalent of a rich man's team of lawyers on retainer Cosby's conviction was overturned years later. Not sure how a poor defendant is going to be getting lawyers to go to bat years later looking for loopholes. This is also ignoring the fact that a trial in and of itself can turbo gently caress a poor person's entire life even if found innocent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 06:22
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Unless you are proposing nationalizing lawyers (all of them) this is not possible. Even assuming public defenders were able to defend a client to the equivalent of a rich man's team of lawyers on retainer Cosby's conviction was overturned years later. Not sure how a poor defendant is going to be getting lawyers to go to bat years later looking for loopholes. What would you even call a nationalized counsel system, Legiscade?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 06:32
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Presumably the solution is to actually protect defendants who aren't cosby rich rather than throwing out the rules protecting the rights of defendants Unless you’re voting in leadership who actually pursues this, that seems like an incredibly unlikely solution. Right now our leaders are in favor of prison labor and massively expanding the funding of the police instead. Also, it just generally sucks to tell people who are angry that another rapist is getting away from their duly deserved punishment to suck it up cause defendant rights should be(but actually isn’t) a thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 08:13
|
|
|
People have literally spent decades in prison for the crime of owning popular music (or more often, being black) while within the vague region of a crime, and yet you can barely keep a high-profile serial rapist with literally dozens of accusers dating back half a century in prison for more than a year before getting out because some prosecutor didn't dot all his i's. People are right to be mad. This is complete absurdity hiding behind the fig-leaf of an institution that constantly betrays, enslaves and destroys the most vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 10:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nobody is saying throw out the rules protecting the rights of all defendants I am unaware of a way to limit them to just non-rich defendants, and indeed even if there was a way, that still doesn't remotely address the greater structural issues with the legal system that would just lead to cosby's lawyers to eventually find something else to get him out of jail on given his effectively infinite legal budget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 11:13
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:People have literally spent decades in prison for the crime of owning popular music (or more often, being black) while within the vague region of a crime, and yet you can barely keep a high-profile serial rapist with literally dozens of accusers dating back half a century in prison for more than a year before getting out because some prosecutor didn't dot all his i's. Well, yeah, absolutely. I'm just curious how this line of argument -- that the criminal justice system routinely fucks people over -- leads to "...and that's why we should ignore prosecutorial misconduct in this case." The problem is too few people have access to this sort of remedy, and it seems like a particular slap in the face that it's given to a rich rapist and not someone who is factually innocent or guilty of only a minor crime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, yeah, absolutely. I'm just curious how this line of argument -- that the criminal justice system routinely fucks people over -- leads to "...and that's why we should ignore prosecutorial misconduct in this case." The problem is too few people have access to this sort of remedy, and it seems like a particular slap in the face that it's given to a rich rapist and not someone who is factually innocent or guilty of only a minor crime. What is being remedied? The accommodations afforded Mr. Cosby through his wealth privilege have only gone so far as to cause another illness: that of the open, brazen display of "rich people interact with the court system like this, filthy poors interact with the court system like this." and this has almost assuredly done some level of psychic damage not just to the victims/survivors directly in this case, but to victims/survivors of other high-profile, rich, media-beloved rapists. "Remedy", intentionally or not, conveys that there was something here that needed to be treated - there wasn't. This essential oil of a treatment did nothing but re-traumatize victims - how do you propose we remedy that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I am unaware of a way to limit them to just non-rich defendants No one is saying this either
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, yeah, absolutely. I'm just curious how this line of argument -- that the criminal justice system routinely fucks people over -- leads to "...and that's why we should ignore prosecutorial misconduct in this case." The problem is too few people have access to this sort of remedy, and it seems like a particular slap in the face that it's given to a rich rapist and not someone who is factually innocent or guilty of only a minor crime. Ok I'll play. We should ignore prosecutorial misconduct in this case because Prosecutorial Misconduct, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Brady Violations, Cumulative Error, Your Legal Rights, and the ten thousand other legal mechanisms are not real. They don't exist until the rich need a loophole to get out of jail and continue raping or killing people. There is no reason they should be respected or protected like you've alluded to. Every one of these mechanisms and "rights" (lol) only seem make themselves known when the rich people are in the room. And in my opinion any "success" you've seen with something relating to procedure or rights (lol) is theatre/propaganda to keep people juuuuuuuuuuuust bought in enough to salute the noble justice system and keep it operating. edit: Like jfc if you don't look at the mechanism of Prosecutorial Discretion and realize the whole system's made up I don't know what to tell you thehandtruck fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jul 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
I think the issue of how the Cosby decision is being discussed is that the values being expressed are good. Prosecutors generally should be held to a high standard, should not lie to people, or walk back an assumed promise because they were doing the legal equivalent of crossing their fingers behind their back. We also don't want prosecutors going back on deals just because of a change in who is in charge. But the whole thing just seems dubious. As I think people have stated, the circumstances of Cosby's situation and the press release are so unique. It also seems that a lot of work has to be done on Cosby's behalf. The decisions involves a lot of assumptions being made about Cosby's thinking and why he did not invoke his 5th Amendment rights during the Civil Case. I think when we talk about the application of law in regards to class, I do wonder if there is a place for equitable but not necessarily equal application. Like let's create the parallel situation to Cosby's. The cops pull in a kid in a gang to testify against a member of the gang who murdered someone. The kid has done some bad stuff, but the prosecutor has told them they will be not be prosecuted for anything they bring up in their testimony. It would be bad if the Prosecutor went back on this. But I think it's also fair to say that Cosby and his vast legal team have are much more capable of navigating the legal system. So, should he be given the same benefit of ignorance as some random kid? But even then, giving such wiggle room is probably problematic. But I do think people are trying to jump on folks who are questioning if the choice was the just decision by trying to move the ball to more broad conversations about the legal systems. But I feel like they're side-stepping what they think would be just. I think it's fair to say it's just that prosecutors can't go back on a deal even if I'm not fully sure that's how this situation should be described. EDIT: Can people please check condescending others in this thread? Rape, abuse, and harassment are such an epidemic that it's hard to find people not connected to it if not victims/survivors themselves. And berating people--even if you really disagree with them--feels like a lovely thing to do when there is a good chance that this is a really wrought and emotional topic. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jul 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Justice is an end, not a process, or rather the process is not inherently just or unjust independent of the end. If the end is unjust then the process that arrives at it, is unjust, and the converse is also true. I think the issue with trying to imagine that there is one true process of justice and that straying from it is wrong whatever happens and more importantly, that holding to it is right whatever outcomes it produces, is to entirely ignore the fact that the outcomes are so clearly unjust. A guy is free who should be locked up, people are locked up who should be free, and it is the same process that produces both of those things. You can not rightly expect people to not find it contemptible in light of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 17:00
|
|
