UPDATED: Guilty verdict in Bill Cosby Case (threads merged)

[Tinami Amori]

Reading through this thread a second time today, this struck me as a really odd comment.
How can any evolved legal system not aspire to advance social justice? Social justice is an integral element of a justice system.

You took AxelAnnie's post out of context, and/or misunderstood what she said IN REPLY to previously made comments.

Here is her post:

Social justice has no place in a jury room. After hearing the facts presented, the jury...collectively could neither agree to convict or acquit. Period
At the end of the day the evidence wss not strong enough for such conviction.

It means that if members of the jury do not find sufficient evidence to convict, they should not render a guilty verdict just to be "politically correct" just for sake of supporting the "me too" movement (aka implement "social justice" because now there is such trend). Naturally the legal procedure/trial itself is the epitome of social justice (in general sense), and AxelAnnie did not mean it "general sense" but in terms of "political correctness".

This.
Rape victims were traditionally put on trial themselves.

The cases that are put on such complicated trials are not for violent or obvious rape cases, but for ones dealing with "date", "friends", "business associates" or "meeting" setting, when one side argues it was "consensual" (and discussing what one perceives as "consensual" is a discussion in itself), and i am glad that such cases go to trial and all aspects are covered. if anything, it teaches people what to do, not to do, and what can cause problems.

The trend when all it takes for a woman is to accuse a man and he is automatically guilty is not good either. Jury of 12 people, so far, is the best method found. It may not be perfect, but a better one has not yet been found. Now that we have smart-phones which dance, sing, cook dinners, record every breath and eye-wink, such cases will be easier to judge.

 

[Rob]

This article was linked in the WaPo article, very interesting considering it is from 2006: for example, one woman told a lawyer, who laughed at her.
https://www.phillymag.com/articles/2006/06/09/dr-huxtable-mr-hyde/

 

[BaileyCatts]

I think he'll go to prison (not jail) after sentencing.

Here's why:

https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter5/s521.html

State court judges are political figures. Even though Cosby is 80, it would be a very bold judge who would use his discretion to allow bail to such a high-profile defendant in a sexual assault case.

And I think there's a good chance that any appeal before sentencing will be dealt with speedily to send a message.

ETA: This piece in The New York Times explains why Cosby is likely to face incarceration sooner rather than later: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/arts/television/bill-cosby-guilty-next-steps.html

Yeah, I get it. But .... if the man drops dead, he won't be going to jail is my point. If his health is really as poor as they've made it out to be, I would not be surprised if he simply has a heart attack and dies before ever getting sentenced or going to jail/prison. We're still likely weeks away from the sentencing phase. That's a long time for someone who is already knocking on death's door.

 

[DimaToe]

It’s unfair that even if he serves time in prison that it will not be anything close to enough time to make up for the evil that he did. If he wasn’t Bill Cosby and if the general public wasn’t blinded by how he came across as an actor then this could’ve been solved a lot sooner

 

[Vagabond]

Yeah, I get it. But .... if the man drops dead, he won't be going to jail is my point. If his health is really as poor as they've made it out to be, I would not be surprised if he simply has a heart attack and dies before ever getting sentenced or going to jail/prison. We're still likely weeks away from the sentencing phase. That's a long time for someone who is already knocking on death's door.

Is he really knocking on death's door? He is an award-winning actor.

 

[Japanfan]

deleted

 

[Tinami Amori]

Then it would be more precise for her to have said 'political correctness'.

well, she used the wrong term... and now we know what she meant, and she confirmed it. so there is no issue now.

If a man who is accused of sexual harassment is automatically guilty in the eyes of the public, there may be a lesson in that for men.

That's a despicable attitude.... There may be 2-3 men out of 20 accused who are innocent, and that's why there are trials to determine one's guilt, and if not proven sufficiently, the verdict should be not guilty. Innocent until proven guilty still stands in civilized societies. To "sacrifice few innocent men" for sake of a "message" is not fair.

If a woman, or a group of women, are so weary of men, they have every right to take protective measures, keep distance, not let them into their lives/space/house/etc., be aloof, watch carefully, not date them, leave a date/a meeting,etc. But nobody has a right to "preemptive aggression" or to "make an example of someone just because he is a man".

That is what Germans used to do in E. European villages, when they caught partisans... for each partisan caught they shot 10 villagers.. to discourage. You're suggesting bringing down men who maybe innocent, just to set an example to all me...

I remember my boyfriend's response to the emergence (or growing importance) of sexual harassment as an issue in the 1980s. He was very annoyed because he thought he might not be able to even give a woman a friendly pat on the back. So, he perceived the issue to be one that would take something away from him - his entitlement to touch women. He did not see it as a problem that men collectively needed to address. He did not consider how men sexually objectify women (or men), how sexual objectification is entrenched in society, or how gender is constructed. Some women do not want men giving them 'friendly' pats on the back, and men should learn why that is.

Then if you did not like his attitude, should not have had him for a boyfriend.... . Or, when one pats you on your butt, you pat him right back... in the groin, and issue is solved.

Why would a women record an intimate encounter with a man on her phone? Maybe some would want to reply it back to themselves later, but that seems quite strange to me.

if a woman is having an intimate encounter with a man, obviously it is not "rape" ...
But if she is on a date, or in a meeting/interview, and conversation or physical actions are getting out of hand, then all she needs to do is push a button...

If she wanted to record to catch a man in the act of assaulting her, she would have to a) know he would assault her, and b) be willing to put herself in dangerous situation. Maybe some women would be willing to do both in order to ensure that an abuser was revealed to the law, but I would think they would be very few.

You're describing violence, not "clumsy flirting" or "pushy sexual advances". Violent assault is easier to prove. Clumsy flirting or aggressive advances better be recorded...

 

[Japanfan]

Innocent until proven guilty still stands in civilized societies. To "sacrifice few innocent men" for sake of a "message" is not fair.

I was not talking about courts' determination of guilt. Of course a guilty verdict should not be delivered if an alleged crime cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course a lynch mob should not be unleashed on an individual for an alleged action - in fact, I don't believe that a lynch mob should ever be unleased. I find such collective expressions of anger absolutely terrifying. I have a magnet on my fridge that says: never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

I was talking about public perception of guilt, which is a different thing, and the need for privileged groups of society to be accountable at large. For example, as a white person I accept that I have benefited from the privilege of my skin color. I've certainly never contributed intentionally to the oppression of persons of color/indigenous people and have always espoused quality and tolerance. But still, I have had white privilege (which is different from male privilege).

For example, the cop who pulled me over about a year ago because my car insurance had expired (I forgot to renew it) and found that my license had also expired (I didn't know) gave me the lowest fine possible and said he was having a 'show the public that cops are nice day'. Had I been black or Indigenous, he might not have been so generous.

But nobody has a right to "preemptive aggression" or to "make an example of someone just because he is a man".

Is this what you think is happening?

Cosby and Weinstein have made themselves bad examples all on their own.

 

[misskarne]

The cases that are put on such complicated trials are not for violent or obvious rape cases, but for ones dealing with "date", "friends", "business associates" or "meeting" setting, when one side argues it was "consensual" (and discussing what one perceives as "consensual" is a discussion in itself), and i am glad that such cases go to trial and all aspects are covered. if anything, it teaches people what to do, not to do, and what can cause problems.

You're glad that victims have to endure going to trial to be called sluts and whores and have the defence tell everyone she obviously wanted it because of what she was wearing and it was her fault if she was drunk or high and obviously she should have known what it meant if she went into a room with him and consent to kiss is obviously consent to sex and of course she wanted it, the poor boy knew she really wanted it even if she said no?

Because that's what a lot of those "not obvious" ( ) rape trials involve. And too often, that vile tactic from the defence works. You try to say that it's inherently biased that men are automatically assumed to have raped - I disagree. Reading articles about rape trials, I think it's inherently biased that a woman automatically is assumed to have wanted it and regretted it in these situations, or that she's lying out of spite. And that comes through in a lot of the reporting.

 

[Peaches LaTour]

Is he really knocking on death's door? He is an award-winning actor. [/QUOTE

I don't care if he is dying or not: put his disgusting butt in prison.

I wonder if his devoted wife of blah-blah many years is still going around with that phony smile plastered on her face.

 

[skateboy]

I have a magnet on my fridge that says: never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

I absolutely agree with this, regardless of the aforementioned case.

 

[puglover]

Every comment I read from Bill Cosby's spokespeople and lawyers - or what he is quoted as having said just infuriates me. I personally think a more compassionate and humble stance would be better than the arrogance. He has every right to claim innocence but I find everything coming from their camp just horrible and out of touch with society's current feelings about women.

 

[Vagabond]

I don't care if he is dying or not: put his disgusting butt in prison.

Sounds reasonable to me.

He is under house arrest, which is a step in the right direction.

 

[MacMadame]

I wonder if his devoted wife of blah-blah many years is still going around with that phony smile plastered on her face.

I read she wasn't in court for the reading of the verdict. I guess she has her limits.

 

[Tinami Amori]

I was not talking about courts' determination of guilt. Of course a guilty verdict should not be delivered if an alleged crime cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course a lynch mob should not be unleashed on an individual for an alleged action - in fact, I don't believe that a lynch mob should ever be unleased. .

Well, then we're in agreement .. because previous comment sounded like it is ok if a potentially innocent man endures "social stigma discomfort" as it will be a good lesson and warning to all men.

You're glad that victims have to endure going to trial to be called sluts and whores and have the defence tell everyone she obviously wanted it because of what she was wearing and it was her fault if she was drunk or high and obviously she should have known what it meant if she went into a room with him and consent to kiss is obviously consent to sex and of course she wanted it, the poor boy knew she really wanted it even if she said no?.

you lost me when you started the sentence with "you're glad the victims have to suffer, etc".

When one party accuses another of wrong-doing, especially violence, and there are no clear evidence proving guilt, the case must go to trial and both sides will argue by allowed methods their side. Often most obvious evidence do not confirm guilt. watch or re-watch if you have time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DkI2I0W5i8

If anything needs to be addressed (in rape cases) is methods by which Defense of the accused of rape can question the victim, calling a victim "slut" and "whore" is not acceptable.

 

[Japanfan]

Well, then we're in agreement .. because previous comment sounded like it is ok if a potentially innocent man endures "social stigma discomfort" as it will be a good lesson and warning to all men.

But at the same time, the privilege and entitlement that men experience, particularly men with power and influence, has to be recognized (among all men, including those who do not assault or abuse women). This is what I've been trying to say, but I don't know if I have said it the right way, and I don't know if I'm saying it in the right way now.

With recognition, comes responsibility.

I question whether men like Cosby or Weinstein (sp?) even understand why their actions with women are deemed irresponsible or, to the extent of being criminal. I'm not sure they get it, because they've never learned the boundaries of appropriate sexually-oriented behavior and have been behaving on the basis of their sense of power and entitlement. To give an example, I think Trump remains proud of his offensive behavior/attitude towards women, which was televised for the whole world to see. Trump is the personification of the entitlement that powerful men experience in all areas of their lives, not only their relationships with women.

If anything needs to be addressed (in rape cases) is methods by which Defense of the accused of rape can question the victim, calling a victim "slut" and "whore" is not acceptable.

On this we agree. The alleged victims of rape should never be treated like they are the accused, but often are.

 

[Prancer]

How in the hell are they going to find an impartial jury? Everybody on the planet knows about this case. But I guess that's for the attorneys to figure out.

I'm sure that with the second case coming on the heels of the #metoo movement

It means that if members of the jury do not find sufficient evidence to convict, they should not render a guilty verdict just to be "politically correct" just for sake of supporting the "me too" movement (aka implement "social justice" because now there is such trend).

Well, going by the statements of the first juror to talk, he was unaware of the case and the #MeToo Movement before the trial.

Snyder also denied knowing of the Cosby allegations prior to performing jury duty. "I don't watch the news ever. So, I didn't even know what he was on trial for."

Similarly, he says he was not influenced by the Me Too movement. "I really only found out about it after I got home then I looked online to see what everything was," he said. "I didn't even really know about the Me Too movement."

Snyder said he believed Constand's testimony, but feels he would've voted to convict Cosby even if the additional five women hadn't testified, which Judge Steven O'Neill blocked at the first trial but allowed at the retrial.

NBC's Morgan Radford read a statement from jury members on Today Monday that aligned with Snyder's remarks. "Not once were race or the #MeToo movement ever discussed, nor did either factor in our decision," the statement read.

"We were asked to assess the credibility of Ms. Constand's account of what happened to her, and each one of us found her account credible and compelling."

So if you are feeling sorry for poor ol' Bill because you thought he was the victim of political correctness, you can either put your mind at ease or dismiss what the jurors say.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Well, going by the statements of the first juror to talk, he was unaware of the case and the #MeToo Movement before the trial.

Snyder also denied knowing of the Cosby allegations prior to performing jury duty. "I don't watch the news ever. So, I didn't even know what he was on trial for."

Similarly, he says he was not influenced by the Me Too movement. "I really only found out about it after I got home then I looked online to see what everything was," he said. "I didn't even really know about the Me Too movement."

Snyder said he believed Constand's testimony, but feels he would've voted to convict Cosby even if the additional five women hadn't testified, which Judge Steven O'Neill blocked at the first trial but allowed at the retrial.

NBC's Morgan Radford read a statement from jury members on Today Monday that aligned with Snyder's remarks. "Not once were race or the #MeToo movement ever discussed, nor did either factor in our decision," the statement read.

"We were asked to assess the credibility of Ms. Constand's account of what happened to her, and each one of us found her account credible and compelling."

So if you are feeling sorry for poor ol' Bill because you thought he was the victim of political correctness, you can either put your mind at ease or dismiss what the jurors say.

Certainly very interesting pieces of information about Bill Cosby's first trial. Yet, the conversation i am having with Japanfan is not specifically about Cosby's trial, but a PC-trend to label a man "guilty" as soon as a woman accuses him, before trial.

But at the same time, the privilege and entitlement that men experience, particularly men with power and influence, has to be recognized (among all men, including those who do not assault or abuse women). This is what I've been trying to say, but I don't know if I have said it the right way, and I don't know if I'm saying it in the right way now.
With recognition, comes responsibility.

Men privilege is a Lefty Feminist invention, because given all the equality laws today between genders/sex they need a "cause" to yell about.

Med do not have ANY privileges and entitlements in the eyes of the Law, that grant them any extra rights which women to not have. Women are equal to men in the eyes of the Law, and if such Laws are broken, women have legal venues to pursue. If a person has been wronged, regardless of the offender's and victim's sex/gender, that person goes to court. Men unlawfully offending women or men, is no different than women unlawfully offending men or other women.

Just because a person thinks "he is King George" or "she is Anna of Austria" and tries to act accordingly towards other people, does not mean the Law will allow it. Just because a man thinks he can grab a woman, does not mean the Law allows it. Women, since they are equal in the eyes of the law, should use caution and force if necessary (like men do with other aggressive men) and/or the Law.

Men and Women are equal in today's world. With equality comes responsibility to be careful with other people in general, and use the Law if other methods to protect oneself do not work.

 

[Prancer]

Certainly very interesting pieces of information about Bill Cosby's first trial.

Really?

Yet, the conversation i am having with Japanfan is not specifically about Cosby's trial, but a PC-trend to label a man "guilty" as soon as a woman accuses him, before trial.

Yes, I know. But the one quote I took from you was not about that conversation; it was about AxelAnnie's post, which is why I chose to quote that part of your post and not any of the posts made between you and Japanfan about social views.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Really?

Why would it not be interesting if you're providing info on "how a juror thinks and what affects the decision". I think it is a rare and precious information, to follow the mind process of a juror.

 

[Prancer]

Why would it not be interesting if you're providing info on "how a juror thinks and what affects the decision". I think it is a rare and precious information, to follow the mind process of a juror.

Because the juror wasn't from Cosby's first trial?

 

[Tinami Amori]

Because the juror wasn't from Cosby's first trial?

then i missed which trial it was. still interesting to read the juror's thinking process.

 

[berthesghost]

“Trend”? Interesting choice of words. But the “fashion, fad, or trend” of calling the accusing woman a liar is still going quite strong after countless centuries, so I quess it’s more a “classic”. Sort of the navy blue blazer of political speak.

 

[Japanfan]

Men and Women are equal in today's world.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, we are not.

For starters, women still earn less than men in the United States (and pretty much everywhere else in the world). And that's only for starters. And I really don't want to get started on this (but will add the women continue to do a disproportionately large amount the childcare and housewife in double income households). And women largely remain the sexually objectified sex. Writers much more brilliant than have written, and continue to write, articles books on the subject.

The materials available to support this view are many. I'm only posting two articles here that I obtained from a quick Google source. There are many more, and many from credible journalistic and academic sources. I have a 200 page article on the subject in my files (thesis I edited) in fact, but I don't think you or anyone else would want to read it LOL.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/08/gender-pay-gap-america-public-sector
https://www.economist.com/news/inte...men-despite-decades-equal-pay-laws-why-gender

 

[Tinami Amori]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, we are not.

sorry to bust yours, but "privilege" (privi-lege) means "private law" or "individual legal advantage". "Entitled" means "given a title/a right (by current law").

There is a difference between being "entitled" and "privileged" by law, and when "some one feels he/she is entitled or privileged to act or to do something" which may not be allowed by law. People, both men and women, often feel "entitled" and "privileged" to do something unlawful. Let's not exclude "man/woman" situations. It's about breaking the law.

In most western and westernized societies/countries men and woman are equal in the eyes of the law, and equal laws apply and protect both groups.

And I really don't want to get started on this (but will add the women continue to do a disproportionately large amount the childcare and housewife in double income households).

There are no laws that require women to be mothers and housewives and cater to men. It's women's choice to marry, to have children, and to set family dynamics and responsibilities with their spouses.

And women largely remain the sexually objectified sex.

There are no laws that require women to abide by others' sexual fantasies or expectations. There are however laws protecting woman's body, a right not to be touched when not invited, exclusion of profanities insulting to women in public and work places, etc. Women have the laws, they should use it.

For starters, women still earn less than men in the United States (and pretty much everywhere else in the world). And that's only for starters. Writers much more brilliant than have written, and continue to write, articles books on the subject.

The materials available to support this view are many. I'm only posting two articles here that I obtained from a quick Google source. There are many more, and many from credible journalistic and academic sources. I have a 200 page article on the subject in my files (thesis I edited) in fact, but I don't think you or anyone else would want to read it LOL.

The laws protect equal pay for equal work. A company can not advertise jobs with stated salary differences for men and women. If an advert states "Computer Programmer - $75k/annual salary" the company must pay that salary to any gender they hire, and can't say "since you're a woman, we'll pay you $70K".

If a woman, on the job for 5 years, who is working full 40 hrs a week, and submits 10 satisfactory required reports, finds out she is paid less than a male employee, who is on the job for 5 years, who is working full 40 hrs a week, and submits 10 satisfactory required reports, she can take her employer to court.

There are men who feel "entitled" to grab a woman or pay her less for equal work, that's against the law.
There are people in general who feel "entitled" to steal your car or wallet, that's against the law.
In both cases, laws exist to protect the victims.

If women want to be equal, they should "grow some teeth" and start using laws and existing defense methods. The methods are there. One should take the trouble and use it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/08/gender-pay-gap-america-public-sector

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/08/gender-pay-gap-america-public-sector
https://www.economist.com/news/inte...men-despite-decades-equal-pay-laws-why-gender

... and then there is research showing that on an average, women work 14 hrs a week less then men (because of various reasons), and men work longer hours.

If men and women are equal, and want equal pay for equal work, then more hours deserves more pay!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karina...en-work-longer-hours-than-women/#3a37ab2218b4

 

[Vagabond]

then i missed which trial it was. still interesting to read the juror's thinking process.

Not as interesting as reading yours.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Not as interesting as reading yours.

happy to oblige, keep reading..

 

[Vagabond]

 

[Twilight1]

I can't believe I am saying this but overall Tinami is right. There are a few exceptions where salary is negiotiated that women make less than men but that comes down to women lowballing themselves in what they are worth and then getting frustrated when they hear their male peers make more.

There are also a few pay equity settlements that have been occuring but overall the situation is much better than it was .

One could say sexualization of women is a social issue and not judicial.

Pressure to maintain the home is also dependent on dynamics for the woman.

I grew up in home where my mom stayed home for the most part so she did most of the housework. My dad, when he was working, focused on working.

Me on the other hand, work full time and have shared house duties. Most families I know are like that.

Internalized messaging is not illegal... it falls into stereotype gender roles that anyone can break by being assertive.

In addition, women have privilege in almost always getting custodial rights to their kids with men expected to pay child support when the fathers could be the better custodial parent.

 

[ballettmaus]

I can't believe I am saying this but overall Tinami is right. There are a few exceptions where salary is negiotiated that women make less than men but that comes down to women lowballing themselves in what they are worth and then getting frustrated when they hear their male peers make more.

Women may be equal to men in front of the law but that doesn't mean that this is what reality looks like.

https://www.businessinsider.de/wage-gap-gender-data-top-us-cities-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

According to US Census Bureau data, the gender wage gap stands at around 19.5% nationwide on average. (e.g. If a man makes $50,000 a year, his female coworker with the same role might earn $40,250.)

https://www.businessinsider.de/gender-wage-pay-gap-charts-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

Today, on average, a woman earns 80.5 cents for every dollar a man earns, and women's median annual earnings are $10,086 less than men's, according to data from the US Census Bureau.

If we want things to change and achieve true equality we need to stop pointing at laws that tell us how things should be like for everyone in theory and instead look at reality and face and accept that reality is still a far cry from what it should be.