|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bill Cosby
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Byron quote:
The presumption of innocence is, TBH, a misnomer. All it means is that, in court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It doesn't mean that a person's factually innocent, or that prosecutors or police ought to assume that. Just the opposite, they shouldn't be moving forward if they don't believe in a suspect's guilt.
This looks like sophistry to me! To say: "It doesn't mean that a person's factually innocent" is about as banal as saying "because he's found guilty by the jury doesn't mean he's factually guilty".
Furthermore, in countries where the rule of law prevails the executive (police and prosecution) and judiciary are separated. It is the task of the jury, guided by the judge, to impartially decide on the facts and credibility of the case against the accused brought by the executive authorities. Otherwise we have "hanging judges", don't we?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think you mistake the word and concept of "truth" with "conclusions of a court". Courts have never been about truth, only judgements about whether something has been proved according to the rules of the court.
Criminal cases are usually "beyond a reasonable doubt" and civil cases (law suits) are on "a balance of the probabilities". If one side of a case has a better paid arguer (lawyer) they may well be able to tip things away from the truth and win the argument. Politicians are masters of this in another context. They used to say in the time when Canada had a death penalty that 'no one with $10,000 ever was hanged', which points to the inequities. (I think OJ Simpson and Colin Thatcher both killed their wives, even though only one of them was convicted).
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
And -- we now have psychologists selecting juries with just the right set of prejudices for their side. They wouldn't even consider me for a murder trial in my state because I'm against the death penalty.
Anyone who thinks a conviction of guilt is The Truth should have a look at the number of life sentenced prisoners who are being released today because DNA evidence proves someone else did it.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A couple of points.
1. The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned. We may think we have, but given the means by which information is mediated to "the court of public opinion", such a court is not a proper court within which to try offences, determine the guilt, innocence, or if you like "not provenness" of anyone. Basically because what we think is evidence may be tainted or slanted by various means, and we lack both the information and means of testing that ourselves.
2. So the process by which we arrive at our opinions is basically unsafe as a means of judging guilt or innocence. I think we do well to recognise the lack of safety involved, be prepared to withhold judgment pending more rigorous processes. How do any of us know whether our conclusions are safe or not, unless we have direct (rather than mediated) evidence? How do any of us know that our collective opinions are in any way superior to those produced by legal processes? I do not see how any of us can know that for sure.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Kwesi--
Are you familiar with the Innocence Project?
Rulings of guilt or innocence in US courts don't necessarily have *anything* with actual guilt/innocence, justice, or even fact.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
no prophet--
Re OJ: yes, he was acquitted of the criminal case, but not the civil.
NOLO.com has a good, short article on how the two systems worked in this situation.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kwesi--
Are you familiar with the Innocence Project?
Rulings of guilt or innocence in US courts don't necessarily have *anything* with actual guilt/innocence, justice, or even fact.
"Don't necessarily" is undoubtedly right. Power and money can bugger up anything of course. But that's an argument for legal reform, as the Innocence Project argues and lobbies, not an argument for placing more trust in media processes, which are also likely to be buggered up by power and money.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
1. The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned.
Do you apply this to all your consumption of the media? Do you intend to interview a bunch of scientists before you draw conclusions about climate change? When you pack your suitcase prior to a trip to a far-away place, do you look at weather reports for that place and believe them, or do you call up 12 people who live there and ask them what the weather's like?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
1. The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned.
Do you apply this to all your consumption of the media? Do you intend to interview a bunch of scientists before you draw conclusions about climate change? When you pack your suitcase prior to a trip to a far-away place, do you look at weather reports for that place and believe them, or do you call up 12 people who live there and ask them what the weather's like?
Can't speak for Barnabas but wrt climate change it's actually possible to take steps to find out what scientists actually think, independently of how that is reported in the media. AIUI, the scientific consensus is that climate change is actually happening and that the debatable bit is what, exactly, we should do about it. If I were to take my views on the subject from the media in the UK then I would be obliged to hold that the existence of climate change is contested and that furthermore there is serious evidence to the effect that climate change scientists were in the business of rigging evidence and so forth before they were busted by the press. Having an IQ in triple figures and a functioning moral compass I don't, as it happens, take my view on climate change from Lord Rothermere and Rupert Murdoch and so, frankly, I don't see why I should regard them with much more seriousness when it comes to allegations of criminality which have not been tested in a court of law.
There have been a number of unfortunate cases where the media have decided that someone was guilty of a heinous crime only for the facts to emerge later that, in fact, they were entirely innocent. Based on your 'reliability of the media' thesis I would have been obliged to hold that Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough urinated on the dead, that Colin Stagg murdered Rachel Nickell and so forth. Basically, there are an awful lot of people in the media who are sociopathic lying fucks. So, yeah, when horrendous accusations start getting chucked around I try and keep an open mind.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A couple of points.
1. The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned. We may think we have, but given the means by which information is mediated to "the court of public opinion", such a court is not a proper court within which to try offences, determine the guilt, innocence, or if you like "not provenness" of anyone. Basically because what we think is evidence may be tainted or slanted by various means, and we lack both the information and means of testing that ourselves.
2. So the process by which we arrive at our opinions is basically unsafe as a means of judging guilt or innocence. I think we do well to recognise the lack of safety involved, be prepared to withhold judgment pending more rigorous processes. How do any of us know whether our conclusions are safe or not, unless we have direct (rather than mediated) evidence? How do any of us know that our collective opinions are in any way superior to those produced by legal processes? I do not see how any of us can know that for sure.
You seem to forget that we, the court of public opinion, do not have the power to send anyone to jail for even a day or fine them a penny. That's why it's perfectly okay for us to allow our brains to form opinions about the things we read in the news.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
RuthW
It would probably be true to say that I have more reservations about the media than I had before the advent of 24/7 news. I think that has led to a dumbing down and a trivialisation of news reporting. Mostly I use the BBC website in the first place, and supplement that by listening to Radio 4 for News broadcasts. So far as the printed media are concerned, the "sociopathic lying fuck" dimension (thanks Callan) has been pretty well evidenced in recent years in the UK.
The BBC website is also pretty good on local weather forecasts! That's an experiential finding by the way. And so far as climate change is concerned, I'm also with Callan.
I'm not sure about pond differences here. I think Fox News is a journalistic travesty, a perfect demonstration of how power and money can bugger up the media as a source of anything remotely approaching balanced information. But I'd say pretty much the same about the UK Daily Mail these days.
quote:
So, yeah, when horrendous accusations start getting chucked around I try and keep an open mind.
Seconded.
[ 22. November 2014, 22:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... I don't see why I should regard them with much more seriousness when it comes to allegations of criminality which have not been tested in a court of law.
Sadly, on the US side of the pond. being "tested in a court of law" often carries little enough seriousness.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The media are intermediaries. What we hear and what we see is subject to editorial policy and editing. Unless we actually know the people concerned, have talked and listened to them, we do not have any evidence with which to judge the people concerned. [...] How do any of us know whether our conclusions are safe or not, unless we have direct (rather than mediated) evidence?
It seems to me that if you were really that cautious, it would be hard to justify having an opinion on most political matters. Would it be responsible to vote in an election in which you didn't know all the candidates personally?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I dislike this sort of discussion about celebrities which sounds just like a trashy gossip column. In my opinion there are far more worthwhile topics to discuss.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I dislike this sort of discussion about celebrities which sounds just like a trashy gossip column.
You must read some pretty different gossip columns than I do. The last couple of pages of this thread have been taken up more with discussion and debate about how the media and the legal system treat criminal allegations in general, rather than lurid tales of one celebrity's misbehaviour.
[ 23. November 2014, 04:05: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kwesi--
Are you familiar with the Innocence Project?
Rulings of guilt or innocence in US courts don't necessarily have *anything* with actual guilt/innocence, justice, or even fact.
"Don't necessarily" is undoubtedly right. Power and money can bugger up anything of course. But that's an argument for legal reform, as the Innocence Project argues and lobbies, not an argument for placing more trust in media processes, which are also likely to be buggered up by power and money.
Not saying we should trust the media, whether professional or social, more than the "justice" system. My point was simply that Kwesi's view of the system seems far more trusting than is warranted.
I'm not *at all* saying that if it's in the media, it must be true. I rarely think that way, and I surely am not in this case. While writing this post, OTOH, I started thinking about all the times the media has gotten it pretty right. Watergate comes to mind. Heck, even the National Enquirer broke some real stories.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where it's often not possible to know what's happened, nor why.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Dave W
Who I vote for is a darn sight less important in the scheme of things than the liberty or reputation of any individual, famous or otherwise.
in my post to which you refer, I was using the word evidence in the technical sense that the media information has not been tested for admissibility or accuracy. So it is not, or not yet, evidence which has been tested sufficiently yet to be used to try a person's guilt or innocence.
Of course any of us is free to have an opinion on anything we read or hear. But we are not a jury and we are not direct witnesses of what may have happened. Repeating Callan's phrase, I try to keep an open mind.
When cases come to court in the UK, jurors are sworn in on the basis that they will try the case based on what they hear in court. I've been a juror in a case which had a lot of prior press coverage. It's pretty hard to put out of your mind things that you've read before, and this was a nasty case involving vicious abuse of a very young child. But you have to try to do that, when someone's liberty and reputation are at stake.
People deserve a fair trial. I don't think that trial by media is fair. Which is not to say that I think all legal trials are fair either. I'm as much against manipulation of due process as undue trust in media information. There are good grounds for concern about both institutions.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
[...] So, yeah, when horrendous accusations start getting chucked around I try and keep an open mind.
Couldn't agree more, but seeing the details, on what I know, I believe them. Open minds can close, if only provisionally. With more evidence, they can be reopened.
If Cosby has been falsely accused, it's a travesty, and hurts every survivor. He'd go a long way to convincing folk if he (or his counsel) issued an unequivocal denial, and filed defamation suits. His attorneys can provide evidence that contradicts the accusations. If this is wrong, a man with his resources is far from helpless, and he can get out in front of it.
Ultimately Twilight has it right: my belief isn't gonna jail him, or take away his fortune.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Golden Key quote:
My point was simply that Kwesi's view of the system seems far more trusting than is warranted.
Golden Key, I hope I'm not so naïve as you think me. My remarks related to a post by Byron and I stick by them. What I would say is that miscarriages of justice are usually related to a presumption of guilt, frequently associated with a close relationship between the police, prosecuting authorities and uncritical journalism combined with public prejudice. That said, a court of law in a state where the rule of law is an ideal generally offers the best way of settling criminal guilt or innocence. Rape, however, causes particular difficulties in establishing the facts, but guilt by accusation is no solution IMO.
Basic to the question is what I think the philosophers would say is epistemological in character: What do we know? And how do we know it?
Belief and revelation have their say in this, but systematic doubt has many advantages. Ultimately, as divine revelation informed Job and Socrates concluded, we know virtually nothing.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Kwesi, how was it "sophistry" to say that a prosecutor failing to persuade a unanimous jury has no bearing whatsoever on actual guilt? I'd have thought it was a statement of the obvious!
Check out interviews with jurors (in those jurisdictions that allow it). Time after time, they'll say that they thought the defendant was probably guilty, but weren't sure.
Likewise, as others have said, a guilty verdict doesn't preclude actual innocence. Jurors are as fallible as the rest of us.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People deserve a fair trial. I don't think that trial by media is fair. Which is not to say that I think all legal trials are fair either. I'm as much against manipulation of due process as undue trust in media information. There are good grounds for concern about both institutions.
Although you were aimed at a somewhat different issue, your post raises the question "what constitutes a fair trial". The discussion in Canada about a radio host accused of multiple sexual assaults - not sure if the media hosts accusations in the UK have had the same effect - has led to much discussion and general understanding that sexual assault trials are anything but fair to the complainant. Thus the majority of complainants never report and the criminals continue to harm people. One wonders if Cosby had been made to face the allegations decades earlier, who might have avoided being harmed.
One of main problems is structural. The accused has a lawyer, the complainant doesn't. The general experience is that the prosecution communicates very poorly in all jurisdictions and countries, lacks resources and generally wants to dispassionately represent the Crown's case (State's case in USA). There is no advocate for the victim in the process. The prosecutor represents the Crown/State, and specifically does not represent the victim.
Further, the prosecutor may or may not be worried about the lines of questions defence lawyers put to the complainant, because they care more about the case and do not want or do not have the expertise to understand the grievous effects on the victim. They may also lack the professional training to support the victim or simply may not care.
This is why I am rather in favour of the current trials by media. It needs to happen. The trials by media push back against an unfair courts and prosecution system, and may, if we're lucky, provide for substantial revision. Sure accused have rights, but not, as the current system is structured, at the expense of victims having either no rights or rights they cannot exercise.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Dave W
Who I vote for is a darn sight less important in the scheme of things than the liberty or reputation of any individual, famous or otherwise.
It seems to me that parallel comparisons would either be between national policies and an individual's liberty/reputation, or between your influence on the former (your vote) and your influence on the latter (comments on a bulletin board.)
I don't see that you really have any more influence over an alleged criminal's liberty or reputation than you do over national policies, so when you say this: quote:
I think we do well to recognise the lack of safety involved, be prepared to withhold judgment pending more rigorous processes.
I don't understand why you seem to think so much greater care is due when forming opinions about a crime than about politics.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[...] One of main problems is structural. The accused has a lawyer, the complainant doesn't. [...]
Crucial point. This is a consequence of a system designed for one thing (accuser prosecuting the accused) morphing into another (state prosecuting citizen). Things like absolute prosecutorial discretion, and the absence of any duty to investigate, are remnants of the old system. State prosecutors are treated like private citizens.
An insane dogma's arisen that the complainant has no substantive interest in the prosecution of their attacker: it's done on behalf of society. This disempowers complainants, and turns accusers into victims.
Is there any reason we couldn't go back to a modified form of private prosecution? I don't see why. Criminal complaints still get vetted by judges and grand juries, preserving objectivity, but complainants employ attorneys of their choice to prosecute, or even prosecute the case themselves. If they win, state covers their costs.
There'd still be DAs and prosecutors' offices for major investigations, or crimes that the victim declines to prosecute, but private prosecution should, at the least, be an option.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
And in contrast to the above, in civil law systems in which prosecution's always been a public responsibility, complainants do have advocates of their own.
In France, victims lawyer-up, and use their avocat to represent their interests before the investigating judge. Victims can take an active part in the investigation. They can press the judge to follow specific lines of inquiry, arrange confrontations with the person accused, suggest places to search, etc.
Just as importantly, there's also a duty to investigate and prosecute.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am guessing that would rapidly turn out to be an option for the rich, and to hell with anyone else.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Byron: I couldn't disagree with you more re private prosecution. It creates massive disincentive for victims to pursue legal remedies against their attackers.
Look at just this bit of your post: quote:
complainants employ attorneys of their choice to prosecute
Justice by and for the rich, indeed, as I see Doublethink has already noted.
[ 23. November 2014, 16:20: Message edited by: Leaf ]
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
That's a danger, which is why I suggested the state covering the costs in some circumstances. There could also be free prosecutors for indigent accusers, and bursaries for those who can cover some, but not all, of the costs.
It's not about removing state support, but how that support is deployed. Even a saintly prosecutor has to juggle agendas. Empowering victims to prosecute their own cases could do much to help the marginalized.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Byron: I couldn't disagree with you more re private prosecution. It creates massive disincentive for victims to pursue legal remedies against their attackers.
Look at just this bit of your post: quote:
complainants employ attorneys of their choice to prosecute
Justice by and for the rich, indeed, as I see Doublethink has already noted.
As I said, costs, and victim empowerment, are separate issues. Would you be more supportive if a victim with a strong case got a grant to prosecute?
At present, complainants, rich and poor alike, are at the mercy of the prosecutor. They can meet with them, and try to persuade, but ultimately, they get no say in whether the person who victimized them is held to account.
There's lots of talk about victims' rights. Having your attacker prosecuted is surely the most important right of all.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Dave W.
Oh I see your puzzlement now. Sorry, a bit slow.
You make a fair point, but I think it is a good mental discipline to form opinions as though they did matter, rather than being some form of just shooting the breeze. Also as a matter of personal choice I tend to disregard derogatory gossip about anyone. Trying to keep a open mind about others is I think a good habit of mind, whether I know them or not.
Jesus observes in the Sermon on the Mount that we will be judged in the same way we judge. I'm slow to judge on principle. Avoiding jumping to conclusions seems a good ethical standard to apply in general.
Thoughts and values like these are the ones I bear in mind in these kinds of situations. And that being said, whether my vote counts or not, or whether or not I have a vote, forming an opinion on the character of a political candidate strikes me as of lesser importance than forming an opinion on the guilt or innocence of any individual. YMMV.
[ 23. November 2014, 16:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Byron quote:
There's lots of talk about victims' rights. Having your attacker prosecuted is surely the most important right of all.
Agreed, but I'm getting confused, Byron, given your jaundiced view of the efficacy of the criminal justice systems in the U.S.. No Prophet, for example, seems to suggest that trial by mass media is more reliable. What I would like to know is how Shipmates think the charges against Mr. Cosby should be dealt with.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
How would I like it dealt with?
Ideal world: complainant goes before a judge, swears out a criminal complaint, gets an arrest warrant, police and bailiffs dispatched. 6am knock, night in lockup, high bail. Grand jury, discovery, all that jazz. Speedy trial before a fair and impartial jury. Complainant gives their account, defense rebuts, goes to jury.
World as is: DA takes a chance on anything viable within the statute of limitations, remembers they don't actually need corroboration or all that CSI razzledazzle, and tries their best.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by no prophet's flag... quote:
In the face of multiple, independent, and credible accusations, the public has every right to consider someone guilty, and treat them as such. If that person wants to defend themselves, great, let 'em do it, and folk will decide who to believe.
I read the above many times: I'm as gobsmacked by it now as I was on first reading.
If you apply this 'logic' then we can dispense with a criminal justice system, all we'll need is newspapers (for a while), internet forums and gossip - oh, maybe someone to be a professional 'starter' for the rumour mill.
Once the rumour mill, chat-rooms, etc, have done their bit, we'll know who is guilty - because the number of people 'considering' them guilty means they must be - and can bang 'em in gaol.
Is that what you really believe?
Don't know about Canada but we've had some pretty spectacular miscarriages of justice in the UK where everyone knew that people on the receiving end of multiple 'credible' accusations were guilty - until it turned out they weren't. In the US they've had people found to be innocent - by virtue of DNA testing proving they couldn't have raped someone - who've been executed.
In these cases, 12 'good men and true' have known the accused was guilty, as have the multiple accusers (prosecution witnesses), so-called eye-witnesses, etc.
Innocent until proved guilty means exactly that: there must be proof - and wanting something to be so isn't good enough.
Hell, if you look at the Easter story you can see a whole crowd of people who, by your lights, mounted a 'credible' decision of 'guilt' when demanding that a certain prisoner be exposed to the full rigours of Roman law....
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Byron quote:
World as is: DA takes a chance on anything viable within the statute of limitations, remembers they don't actually need corroboration or all that CSI razzledazzle, and tries their best.
Yup! I don't think there's too much between us, though I suspect your view is overly pessimistic. I guess it depends on where you live.
I like the idea of a trial in Mass. and the struggle between Cosby's millions and the feminist lobby. Rough justice, eh! Bring it on.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I didn't post that. Misattributed. Link to post is here.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by no prophet's flag... quote:
In the face of multiple, independent, and credible accusations, the public has every right to consider someone guilty, and treat them as such. If that person wants to defend themselves, great, let 'em do it, and folk will decide who to believe.
I read the above many times: I'm as gobsmacked by it now as I was on first reading.
If you apply this 'logic' then we can dispense with a criminal justice system, all we'll need is newspapers (for a while), internet forums and gossip - oh, maybe someone to be a professional 'starter' for the rumour mill.
Once the rumour mill, chat-rooms, etc, have done their bit, we'll know who is guilty - because the number of people 'considering' them guilty means they must be - and can bang 'em in gaol.
Is that what you really believe?
Don't know about Canada but we've had some pretty spectacular miscarriages of justice in the UK where everyone knew that people on the receiving end of multiple 'credible' accusations were guilty - until it turned out they weren't. In the US they've had people found to be innocent - by virtue of DNA testing proving they couldn't have raped someone - who've been executed.
In these cases, 12 'good men and true' have known the accused was guilty, as have the multiple accusers (prosecution witnesses), so-called eye-witnesses, etc.
Innocent until proved guilty means exactly that: there must be proof - and wanting something to be so isn't good enough.
Hell, if you look at the Easter story you can see a whole crowd of people who, by your lights, mounted a 'credible' decision of 'guilt' when demanding that a certain prisoner be exposed to the full rigours of Roman law....
Though in reply to your idea in this post, you are posting about something else entirely. A single case is entirely different than a series of cases. Is it more than 10 now in this situation?
Thus both your attribution of who posted this, and your outrage are misplaced. The comparison of Cosby to Jesus seems a little odd in addition.
[ 23. November 2014, 18:38: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As I said, costs, and victim empowerment, are separate issues.
They are not and cannot be, short of a system overloaded with financial resource.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Would you be more supportive if a victim with a strong case got a grant to prosecute?
Who develops or determines that strength? Who investigates the case? Who administers those grants? These factors will be influenced by the same factors that make the current systems inequitable.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
At present, complainants, rich and poor alike, are at the mercy of the prosecutor. They can meet with them, and try to persuade, but ultimately, they get no say in whether the person who victimized them is held to account.
Ah, yes, affluence has no influence here. Right.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
There's lots of talk about victims' rights. Having your attacker prosecuted is surely the most important right of all.
The American South has provided all the evidence one needs that a case prosecuted is not a case fairly resolved, nor inherently beneficial to victims.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
L'organist, I'm not suggesting that any extrajudicial punishment be applied to anyone: I'm saying that I consider it reasonable to believe the allegations on the available evidence.
Am I certain? No. Belief isn't certainty. My belief may change if rebuttal evidence comes to light. So far, there's been nothing.
No one should be punished without a guilty verdict in a court of law, with benefit of all the usual safeguards. I don't know which miscarriages of justice you have in mind, but if you think extra safeguards need to be applied, what d'you have in mind?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
LilBuddha, funding could be decided by an independent body, be it a judge, a panel of citizens, or something else. Yes, it'd be imperfect, but so is everything. If it denied a would-be citizen prosecutor, they'd at least have the chance to raise the money themselves, prosecute pro se, or seek an attorney to waive their fees. They'd be better off than at present.
As for the South, what does that have to do with anything? In any case, marginalized groups would be exactly the people who'd benefit from the right to prosecute their own cases.
Alternatively, introduce a duty to prosecute, as exists in civil law systems. Is this what you support?
[ 23. November 2014, 18:45: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
No one should be punished without a guilty verdict in a court of law, with benefit of all the usual safeguards.
How odd that you would say that, since you just admitted that in your ideal world:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
How would I like it dealt with?
Ideal world: complainant goes before a judge, swears out a criminal complaint, gets an arrest warrant, police and bailiffs dispatched. 6am knock, night in lockup, high bail. Grand jury, discovery, all that jazz. Speedy trial before a fair and impartial jury. Complainant gives their account, defense rebuts, goes to jury.
A high bail means that only the rich will be able to get out on bail. The poor will be stuck in jail being punished indefinitely on trumped-up charges for which they'll probably eventually take a plea.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
LilBuddha, funding could be decided by an independent body, be it a judge, a panel of citizens, or something else. Yes, it'd be imperfect, but so is everything. If it denied a would-be citizen prosecutor, they'd at least have the chance to raise the money themselves, prosecute pro se, or seek an attorney to waive their fees. They'd be better off than at present.
A chance to raise what money? If you have never been poor, I suggest you make the acquaintance of poor people.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As for the South, what does that have to do with anything? In any case, marginalized groups would be exactly the people who'd benefit from the right to prosecute their own cases.
Again, with what resources?
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Alternatively, introduce a duty to prosecute, as exists in civil law systems. Is this what you support?
What I would support is one in which power was not privileged. I do not think there is a perfect system that can be created. I would settle for the systems we have being administered as they ought, as they claim.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I dislike this sort of discussion about celebrities which sounds just like a trashy gossip column. In my opinion there are far more worthwhile topics to discuss.
Except these news stories aren't about what designer's suit he wore to the Oscars, or whether he had consensual affairs, or drove drunk, or was in rehab.
It's about whether or not he's a rapist. I don't know whether he is or not, but it's not the same as chatty gossip.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
An insane dogma's arisen that the complainant has no substantive interest in the prosecution of their attacker: it's done on behalf of society. This disempowers complainants, and turns accusers into victims.
I may have missed something, but in the ordinary course of things, complainants are victims. That's precisely what complainants are complaining of: they've been victimized. The victim's home has been burglarized, or her purse has been snatched, or she's been assaulted (sexually or otherwise). And of course the victim has a substantive interest in prosecuting his/her attacker; in situations where s/he is the only witness, a refusal to testify essentially scuttles the case.
I have been the victim of sexual assault, and have also counseled many other survivors. The recovery rate among those survivors who elect to report and go through the criminal justice proceedings is just enough higher than the recovery rate of those who do not report and/or go forward to suggest that reporting and seeing the judicial process through has a favorable impact on survivors' mental health even when the case results in acquittal.
[code]
[ 24. November 2014, 05:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Porridge, sorry, rhetorical device: I simply meant that, if the prosecutor refuses to proceed, victims ought to be empowered to pursue their own criminal complaints.
lilBuddha, I'm suggesting DAs be supplemented, not replaced. Victims would be no worse off than they are now: they'd simply have more options.
saysay, surety's variable based on means. I said high bail 'cause he's rich: an impoverished defendant ought to have a lower bail, or other means to secure them pretrial, like an electric tracker.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You can't say to victims, "If you don't like the DA, go ahead and put it through the criminal court system on your own." Besides the financial inequities, you'll be handing nutcases and assholes a completely new way to damage the people they hate. Think for a moment--
hate your boss, neighbor, ex-spouse? Easy. Charge him/her with criminal assault, in spite of having no evidence whatsoever, and pursue it yourself through the criminal system. You'll create utter chaos in the person's life and destroy their good name without having to produce a shred of evidence. You'll also commandeer the judge and jury system to your own twisted uses, leaving those who really DO have a case that needs to be heard in your dust.
At present, with the state doing all the prosecuting, it is difficult to start a frivolous criminal case. You can do it in the civil courts, because all you need to start there is the money to file. As a result, we have a shitload of frivolous and downright abusive civil suits clogging up that system and making their victims' lives misery. But it would be far worse if you could easily abuse BOTH systems that way, especially when dragging someone into the criminal system can mean destroying their reputations for life. (Not every employer etc. checks to see if you were actually convicted of whatever you were arraigned for. The mere fact of your getting caught up in that system is often enough for them to say "Next candidate, please.")
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And that being said, whether my vote counts or not, or whether or not I have a vote, forming an opinion on the character of a political candidate strikes me as of lesser importance than forming an opinion on the guilt or innocence of any individual. YMMV.
To me it matters what your relationship to that individual is. It really doesn't matter what I think of Bill Cosby; I wasn't going to watch any of his new, now cancelled, projects anyway.
But it does very much matter what NBC and Netflix executives think about him. Bill Cosby isn't going to be tried in a court of law for the things he's been accused of, but folks at NBC and Netflix still had to make decisions about whether they would continue to work with him or not. Should they have withheld judgement about his character instead of cancelling the new shows? Is TVLand wrong to stop showing re-runs of his old shows?
17 women have now accused him of sexual assault. (See a summary of what they say here.) These accusations won't be examined in a court of law. All we have is the so-called "court of public opinion." It's all very well to say you're going to withhold judgement about whether Bill Cosby has sexually assaulted a number of women throughout his career, but it matters very much whether he did or did not do that.
And I think it's mistake to lump all the news media together. Some news media outlets are more trustworthy than others. Some of them in this case are reporting what the women said in police reports. Some women talked to TMZ -- and while TMZ specializes in gossip about celebrities and isn't exactly making a huge contribution to American arts and culture, TMZ vets its stuff. They mostly report about meaningless crap, but their standards for how they report it are very high.
The Washington Post has interviewed five of these women. Go ahead and withhold judgement, but what are show business decision-makers supposed to do? Should they try to interview for themselves all of these women and make their own determination about whether they're telling the truth?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
RuthW
Bill Cosby's reputation is in tatters so all re-runs and new shows will be cancelled as a matter of straightforward commercial sense. The advertisers will not want their products to be associated with his name. The presenters have their own reputations to think of.
Rape is a vile and damaging act and the proper investigation of accusations is very important. As is the investigation of any disregard of allegations made in the past, particularly if there is evidence that power and money have been used to frustrate them. I'm completely in favour of processes which encourage victims to come forward and treat them both seriously and sensitively. DNA evidence collected at the time and other evidence of assault (injuries, trauma) are powerful aids to prosecution in cases where the only human witness in most cases are the people directly involved.
As I said earlier, I've counselled victims of these vile crimes and seen the long term damage. It matters very much to me that justice is done, not just for the victims but for the sake of other potential victims.
From this side of the pond, the information which did surprise me was about statutes of limitations. The general prosecutorial standard in the UK is whether a case for conviction can be made.
Such evidence I have seen suggests that the risk of false accusation is low, but not zero. The risk of bandwagon effects is also low, but not zero. Victims have, historically, been reluctant to come forward immediately both because of what the offence has done to them and because of fears of the very processes they know they will have to face in coming forward. All of this is probably common ground between us.
But none of that makes me in favour of trial by media. If investigative journalism supports justice, that's in all our interests. I don't think it can replace the judicial process, nor does it help if it distorts it.
You are of course right that not all the media are the same. There are serious journalists out there, working for serious media organisations, who do not make common cause with the bottom-feeding sociopaths who are also out there, muck-raking and making money out of the pain of some and the prurience of others. They also cause a lot of suffering. How do we exercise judgment in distinguishing between media outlets? Could I suggest that one of the answers to that requires some critical self examination of the various aspects of our own curiosity?
All the more reason to have better judicial processes which do the job properly. One part of which is having jurors who are able to exercise open minds at trials. I've sat on juries. That's an issue I came across in the jury room.
[ 24. November 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[...] hate your boss, neighbor, ex-spouse? Easy. Charge him/her with criminal assault, in spite of having no evidence whatsoever, and pursue it yourself through the criminal system. You'll create utter chaos in the person's life and destroy their good name without having to produce a shred of evidence. You'll also commandeer the judge and jury system to your own twisted uses, leaving those who really DO have a case that needs to be heard in your dust. [...]
If they have "no evidence whatsoever," how are they gonna launch a criminal complaint? You need a judge/grand jury (varies by jurisdiction) to find reasonable cause.
Yes, private prosecution can be abused, but so can the current system, with people filing false police reports, or prosecutors trampling on people's lives for personal or political ends. Why is there this assumption that individuals are worse than agents of the state? It makes us doubt ourselves way too much.
As for collateral consequences, many states seal arrest records, destroy fingerprints, etc. In any cause, it's a separate issue, as it can arise just as easily from a false report. The civil system, with its different procedures and levels of proof, isn't directly comparable.
Common law evolved around private prosecution. We should, at the least, reconsider if abolishing it (more through atrophy than design) is such a great idea.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
RuthW, couldn't agree more.
As Judith Herman said in Trauma and Recovery, abusers demand the least of us. Neutrality and indifference, that's it. Survivors by contrast, demand so much.
If I have reasonable cause to believe them, then yes, I will. Least I can do.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Whew. I just read all seventeen accounts from Ruth's link. I'm struck most by the repeated mention of, "He asked me to wet my hair and pretend to be a drunk actress."
I didn't see that in any of the news articles I had read. That, to me, is the most convincing thing yet. It's possible that a woman would simply get too drunk to remember consensual sex but the wet hair thing sounds like a fetish that was unique to him. He wasn't just using the drug to have his way, but to create the scenario he liked best. Very sick.
This whole world of nineteen year old girls being privately "mentored," by men, taking non-prescribed drugs blindly from other people, seeing the man who raped them again to further their careers? Mothers don't let your daughters grow up to be actors.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Look. If you're going to allow private prosecution and scuttle the DA-with-judge step (which acts as a kind of filter), you must be planning to run everything past a grand jury, no? And by everything I mean all cases, even those which are on the face of it unprovable due to lack of evidence and/or clearly maliciously motivated.
Okay, fine. But prepare to up the number of grand juries necessary (and find the costs for having them, too). Keep in mind that you're going to be taking a couple dozen people out of their daily lives and away from their work for months at a time in order to filter this greatly increased number of cases. Also keep in mind that quite a few of these private prosecutors are going to want to act as their own attorneys for financial reasons--which means added WTF as they haven't a clue how to put together and present a case. And you don't think the criminal justice system is going to get gummed up?
You say:
quote:
Yes, private prosecution can be abused, but so can the current system, with people filing false police reports, or prosecutors trampling on people's lives for personal or political ends.
Duh. We all know the current system can be abused (though the false police reports are not criminal prosecution, they are false evidence, which is a different thing). And media/movies aside, real evil overlord prosecutors rubbing their hands together and going MWA-HA-ha over destroying people's lives are not in huge supply.
The difference between what we have now and what you're proposing is one of scale--instead of a DA, suddenly everybody in the district is potentially a mini-DA, and permitted to at least start criminal prosecutions for no better reason than "I want to." See above for the likely results of this tsunami of unfiltered cases.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As for collateral consequences, many states seal arrest records, destroy fingerprints, etc. In any cause, it's a separate issue, as it can arise just as easily from a false report. The civil system, with its different procedures and levels of proof, isn't directly comparable.
You're making my point for me. The two systems AT PRESENT are not directly comparable. But if you allow everybody and his brother to prosecute criminal cases privately, they will become much more so. Most noticeably in degree of gummed-up-ness and in the percentage of frivolous/malicious cases started. Don't want to go there.
Regarding sealed records etc--my understanding is that even if records are sealed, the fact that they exist (and are sealed) is still readily available to potential employers. Which leaves them guessing as to what went on back then, hmmmmm? Theoretically employers should not discriminate, and a sealed record ought to be as good as a "no record;" but this is reality here. In a country where you can be fired at will for no reason at all with no recourse, and refusal to hire is even easier, your blithe solution is no solution at all.
And no, damage to reputation cannot arise just as easily from a falsely filed police report, as those things are not readily available on the Internet for the click of a Google. Interactions with the criminal justice system are.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
RuthW, couldn't agree more.
As Judith Herman said in Trauma and Recovery, abusers demand the least of us. Neutrality and indifference, that's it. Survivors by contrast, demand so much.
If I have reasonable cause to believe them, then yes, I will. Least I can do.
Here is a link to book content and introduction.
Everything Judith Herman says in the introduction about supportive environments for trauma victims is right in my experience too. I believed the clients I saw. I had good cause; the events they painfully described provided a very good reason for the consequential traumatic effects from which they were suffering. They were credible witnesses to their present and past suffering. If ever asked, I'd have been happy to give testimony on their behalf.
But I don't think Judith Herman's book justifies a selective standard of legal proof, and from memory I don't think she was arguing for that in her book.
The real tragedy in this case is the apparent inability to get the allegations RuthW linked tested in a court of law, as the U.S. law stands. That would not be the case in the UK, as recent highly publicised cases have demonstrated.
But the publicity doesn't persuade me that the "court of public opinion" is a reliable court, suitable as some kind of substitute in this case. I'm not sure it will provide much by way of closure for the women concerned, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
