Bill Cosby is now out of jail.

[Agema]

No need for expensive lawyers when the state breaks your constitutional rights. The 5th amendment is not a technicality.

A "technicality" in this legal context is a colloquial term that means the spirit of the law losing out to strict adherence to the letter of the law.

Cosby freely admitted under oath dosing women up with drugs, and sleeping with the victim Costand on the night she alleged the assault. It's just that the circumstances in which he did so were successfully argued on appeal to be inadmissable for the criminal court case he was convicted in. This means that damning evidence was rejected for a procedural reason rather than its lack of veracity. This is most certainly a "technicality" as anyone usefully understands the term.

And yes expensive lawyers do matter, because 99% of poor people in the same position would still be sitting in the slammer because fair chance their lawyer would at least one of a) not care enough to bother, b) not be competent enough to realise the technicality, c) persuade them to some sort of guilty plea deal that barred the option of appeal.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

A "technicality" in this legal context is a colloquial term that means the spirit of the law losing out to strict adherence to the letter of the law.

Cosby freely admitted under oath dosing women up with drugs, and sleeping with the victim Costand on the night she alleged the assault. It's just that the circumstances in which he did so were successfully argued on appeal to be inadmissable for the criminal court case he was convicted in. This means that damning evidence was rejected for a procedural reason rather than its lack of veracity. This is most certainly a "technicality" as anyone usefully understands the term.

And yes expensive lawyers do matter, because 99% of poor people in the same position would still be sitting in the slammer because fair chance their lawyer would at least one of a) not care enough to bother, b) not be competent enough to realise the technicality, c) persuade them to some sort of guilty plea deal that barred the option of appeal.

There was a deal made that there would not be a criminal case so that Cosby couldn't plead the 5th in the civil case so Costand could actually get financial justice. If that deal is not made, Cosby doesn't testify (because of the 5th) and probably wins the civil case too. You don't need some expensive lawyer to advise you on that, anyone should know the 5th amendment. You can't trick someone into giving up their 5th or else you just have the civil case always go before the criminal case and get testimony that you couldn't get in the criminal case to use in said criminal case. Cosby should sue for wrongful imprisonment.

 

[Agema]

There was a deal made that there would not be a criminal case so that Cosby couldn't plead the 5th in the civil case so Costand could actually get financial justice. If that deal is not made, Cosby doesn't testify (because of the 5th) and probably wins the civil case too. You don't need some expensive lawyer to advise you on that, anyone should know the 5th amendment. You can't trick someone into giving up their 5th or else you just have the civil case always go before the criminal case and get testimony that you couldn't get in the criminal case to use in said criminal case. Cosby should sue for wrongful imprisonment.

I don't need to have the technicality explained to me, I understand what it is. I also understand that a rapist has managed to get off his rape conviction though a technicality by arguing that what he freely admitted to under oath can't be counted as evidence.

Partly this occurred because rich people can commit crimes and bribe victims into silence. That's when it even gets that far, given that rich people have a legion of flunkies to suppress and bury most of these incidents in the first place (Weinstein, Ailes, etc.). It's the same principle as having expensive lawyers, really. The law is equal on paper, but in practice, the rich have access to all sorts of wheezes to evade the law that the rest of us can't afford.

Potentially he may be able to claim some money for wrongful conviction. Because surely nothing sounds more like "justice" than rapists receiving a payout for getting their convictions quashed on a technicality.

 

[CM156]

I don't need to have the technicality explained to me, I understand what it is. I also understand that a rapist has managed to get off his rape conviction though a technicality by arguing that what he freely admitted to under oath can't be counted as evidence.

Partly this occurred because rich people can commit crimes and bribe victims into silence. That's when it even gets that far, given that rich people have a legion of flunkies to suppress and bury most of these incidents in the first place (Weinstein, Ailes, etc.). It's the same principle as having expensive lawyers, really. The law is equal on paper, but in practice, the rich have access to all sorts of wheezes to evade the law that the rest of us can't afford.

Potentially he may be able to claim some money for wrongful conviction. Because surely nothing sounds more like "justice" than rapists receiving a payout for getting their convictions quashed on a technicality.

It's important to remember that technicalities are not by definition trivialities

 

[Agema]

It's important to remember that technicalities are not by definition trivialities

No indeed. The principles of proper process exist for a reason and they are often to prevent abuses - often of course by the state and their agents.

But on the balance of evidence it is incredibly hard to deny Cosby date raped women, and a lot more women than the one he was convicted for. That he walks free and gets to act like he didn't rape anyone is surely deeply unsatisfying, irrespective of the law being carried out properly.

 

[Schadrach]

You'll have to forgive us for not celebrating the fact that an admitted rapist got off on a technicality.

The technicality being that they didn't have enough to convict him on, offered him immunity so he couldn't invoke the 5th in the civil case, then prosecuted him anyways on the basis of the very deposition statements that without immunity he would have invoked the 5th on.

Are you saying we should scrap the 5th Amendment or that the civil case shouldn't have gone anywhere either because he shouldn't have been offered immunity and thus would have just invoked the 5th in his deposition?

 

[CM156]

No indeed. The principles of proper process exist for a reason and they are often to prevent abuses - often of course by the state and their agents.

But on the balance of evidence it is incredibly hard to deny Cosby date raped women, and a lot more women than the one he was convicted for. That he walks free and gets to act like he didn't rape anyone is surely deeply unsatisfying, irrespective of the law being carried out properly.

No doubt in my mind that Cosby is factually guilty of what he's been accused of. He's a rapist. And morally speaking, I wouldn't shed a tear if he spent the rest of his days behind bars.
Your feelings aren't wrong.

 

[thebobmaster]

The thing that frustrates me the most about this is that the only right thing to do, legally, was to free Bill Cosby. He's an awful person, and what he did was wrong. That doesn't make it okay to treat the Fifth Amendment as an obstacle to be bulldozed through chicanery. He gave testimony under the condition that it wouldn't be used against him in a criminal trial. You can't just say "fuck it" and use the testimony for the specific thing you weren't supposed to use it for.

Now, did having a good lawyer help with that? Probably, but this is such a blatant misconduct on the court's part that I think even the greenest public defender would be able to say "Uh, he only said that stuff under the condition you wouldn't use it against him criminally. You broke that condition, so all of that evidence is inadmissible."

 

[Gordon_4]

No doubt in my mind that Cosby is factually guilty of what he's been accused of. He's a rapist. And morally speaking, I wouldn't shed a tear if he spent the rest of his days behind bars.
Your feelings aren't wrong.

I think that the most galling aspect of this is that it wasn't a disputed point of niche law or a minor issue that has resulted in his freedom, but a public prosecutor doing something so blatantly stupid and obviously bent. Like you can almost admire in a way the absolute audacity of it but in reality all they've done is make their office look like fucking morons and poisoned the well for any further criminal prosecution.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I don't need to have the technicality explained to me, I understand what it is. I also understand that a rapist has managed to get off his rape conviction though a technicality by arguing that what he freely admitted to under oath can't be counted as evidence.

Partly this occurred because rich people can commit crimes and bribe victims into silence. That's when it even gets that far, given that rich people have a legion of flunkies to suppress and bury most of these incidents in the first place (Weinstein, Ailes, etc.). It's the same principle as having expensive lawyers, really. The law is equal on paper, but in practice, the rich have access to all sorts of wheezes to evade the law that the rest of us can't afford.

Potentially he may be able to claim some money for wrongful conviction. Because surely nothing sounds more like "justice" than rapists receiving a payout for getting their convictions quashed on a technicality.

It's not a technicality by any definition of the word. It's not like Cosby got off because they missed a word when reading him his rights or some bullshit like that. The 5th amendment is really fucking important, not some minor rather unimportant thing. Might as well say a person who defended themselves shooting someone got off on a technicality, the 2nd amendment.

Cosby getting off had nothing to do with how rich is he. His money probably helped get Constand some justice in fact. If Cosby was the average citizen without much money, would the deal even be made to get Cosby to testify in civil when the payout wouldn't have been much? The prosecutor obviously knew Cosby could pay out a large sum to Constand so why not get her millions if you don't have the evidence to convict?

I think that the most galling aspect of this is that it wasn't a disputed point of niche law or a minor issue that has resulted in his freedom, but a public prosecutor doing something so blatantly stupid and obviously bent. Like you can almost admire in a way the absolute audacity of it but in reality all they've done is make their office look like fucking morons and poisoned the well for any further criminal prosecution.

How is the prosecutor getting at least financial justice being stupid? He didn't have the evidence to win in a criminal case. And if he doesn't say the criminal case is off, then Cosby doesn't testify in civil and may win that case too. He sorta guarantees some justice is done vs no justice at all. It's not like you can't charge Cosby for his other crimes, and the well is not "poisoned" in that regard.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

How is the prosecutor getting at least financial justice being stupid? He didn't have the evidence to win in a criminal case. And if he doesn't say the criminal case is off, then Cosby doesn't testify in civil and may win that case too. He sorta guarantees some justice is done vs no justice at all. It's not like you can't charge Cosby for his other crimes, and the well is not "poisoned" in that regard.

I think he meant the prosecutor that chose to make a case against Cosby based on the testimony, not the one that got the testimony. They were not the same person and there was apparently a lot of political bullshit behind the motivations.

 

[Gordon_4]

How is the prosecutor getting at least financial justice being stupid? He didn't have the evidence to win in a criminal case. And if he doesn't say the criminal case is off, then Cosby doesn't testify in civil and may win that case too. He sorta guarantees some justice is done vs no justice at all. It's not like you can't charge Cosby for his other crimes, and the well is not "poisoned" in that regard.

The prosecutor who secured the confession with the promise of no criminal conviction was not the same one who decided that verbal agreement - allegedly the arguement was that lacking a signed agreement between Cosby and the State, the State was not bound to honour the immunity - could go fuck itself and initiated criminal proceedings and used the confessions made as evidence to secure the initial conviction. And to be honest, no, financial justice is seldom any kind of justice because frankly there's no way to calculate the value of human dignity and the violation thereof.

The 'well' I refer to here is the reputation of the office of the State Prosecutor as an entity that will honour its agreements. Their actions have undermined the law, aspects of the American constitution as I understand it, and their own authority as law professionals. And of course, now a confessed sexual predator walks free. They have fucked this whole thing up a filthy drainpipe and they should be marched into the US Attorney General's office to have strips torn off them for this gross misconduct.

 

[Agema]

Cosby getting off had nothing to do with how rich is he. His money probably helped get Constand some justice in fact. If Cosby was the average citizen without much money, would the deal even be made to get Cosby to testify in civil when the payout wouldn't have been much? The prosecutor obviously knew Cosby could pay out a large sum to Constand so why not get her millions if you don't have the evidence to convict?

The initial prosecutor, when considering whether to prosecute Cosby, would have factored in to his likelihood of conviction Cosby's public reputation as a much loved public figure and that Cosby would have extremely high quality lawyers capable of making the prosecutor's job far, far harder than the average public defender would. We all know poor people are bundled into prison on crummy evidence (often via plea deals) where a better lawyer could probably get them off. Even worse, some of them are innocent.

$3 million is cheap to Bill Cosby. A minor irritation. As a proportion of his wealth, that's a bit like giving the average Escapist user a <$1000 fine. Particularly cheap for allowing him to walk around in decent society like the respectable, cuddly grandpa figure he worked so hard to cultivate rather than the rapist he is. The reason we have things like prison sentences is because we deem people handing over a tiny chunk of their fortunes insufficient penalty for serious crimes. If $3 million is fair for rape, you may as well argue that Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch should be allowed to murder people just as long as they hand over enough millions to the next of kin. Maybe have package deals, like $10 billion to be allowed to kill a whole town.

That money is not enough is I suspect how most of Cosby's victims feel. I suspect if someone raped you and hushed it up with a few million, you might find the money small compensation for the insult to your wellbeing and dignity when you saw the offender strolling down red carpets, laughing with the press in interviews, paid millions for ads and voiceovers and feted as "America's dad". Let's also remember that the vast majority of Cosby's victims got precisely nothing because of the statute of limitations. Never mind that the reluctance to pursue again likely comes in large part to the impracticality and intimidating prospect of raising a case against an wealthy and enormously successful person back in the day.

 

[stroopwafel]

That you can have civil and criminal trials at the same time sounds very tricky to begin with considering the fifth is such a tight rope. But yeah the criminal court was definitely in the wrong that they violated Cosby's immunity from the civil case and that the sentence is overturned because of inadmissable evidence as a result.

Cosby is a creep but let's not pretend the prosecutors with the their political interests and civil lawyers wanting to pick Cosby clean financially all have the most purest of motives. Greed and a careless conviction were prioritized over due dilligence. Weinstein's conviction was a similar rush job.

 

[Agema]

That you can have civil and criminal trials at the same time sounds very tricky to begin with considering the fifth is such a tight rope.

I suspect something similar about civil and criminal suits exists in the UK, but as far as I am aware the UK has simply nothing like the ability to fob off what should be criminal cases into some sort of civil suit.

Cosby is part of a very long list of incidents where people and organisations in the USA commit crimes and manage to bury it with a payout and non-disclosure agreement. In my view, some of these enter the realm of abusive practice, where individuals are pressured into abandoning the prospect of pursuing criminal charges. The law is what the law is, but if the law facilitates abusive practices, it needs changing. The whole "trial by media" shit aside, sometimes even just getting these scumbags into a courtroom should be enough to let everyone know to be alert. One might note the Scottish professional sleazeball Alec Salmond: sure, he got off (again, plenty of errors made), but I don't think many people believe he didn't amuse himself groping female staff, and his reputation is justifiably mud as a result.

 

[stroopwafel]

I suspect something similar about civil and criminal suits exists in the UK, but as far as I am aware the UK has simply nothing like the ability to fob off what should be criminal cases into some sort of civil suit.

Europe in general don't have the kind of multi-million dollar compensations that civil suits in the U.S. do so it doesn't carry the same weight. As far as I know in the Netherlands any compensations for victims of a crime is part of the criminal case. You're talking tens of thousands in compensation for often serious crimes. Really peanuts compared to the U.S.

Cosby is part of a very long list of incidents where people and organisations in the USA commit crimes and manage to bury it with a payout and non-disclosure agreement. In my view, some of these enter the realm of abusive practice, where individuals are pressured into abandoning the prospect of pursuing criminal charges. The law is what the law is, but if the law facilitates abusive practices, it needs changing. The whole "trial by media" shit aside, sometimes even just getting these scumbags into a courtroom should be enough to let everyone know to be alert. One might note the Scottish professional sleazeball Alec Salmond: sure, he got off (again, plenty of errors made), but I don't think many people believe he didn't amuse himself groping female staff, and his reputation is justifiably mud as a result.

I don't know if that is necessarily true. Often people rather have millions in settlements than a trial. Trial by media is a thing. Media outrage will put pressure on a prosecutor to have the case result in a guilty verdict(constitutional rights of the defendant be damned) and lawyers will smell blood when a celebrity has fallen from grace. That Cosby's sentence is overturned is really just a combination of these two things.

 

[Agema]

I don't know if that is necessarily true. Often people rather have millions in settlements than a trial.

Good for them. But criminal justice is as much about satisfying general society as it is individual victims.

 

[Schadrach]

I don't need to have the technicality explained to me, I understand what it is. I also understand that a rapist has managed to get off his rape conviction though a technicality by arguing that what he freely admitted to under oath can't be counted as evidence.

Without the agreement not to prosecute, Cosby would have just invoked the 5th in the deposition. The criminal case against him was substantially based on that deposition.

So you're saying out of a choice of either "dismantle the 5th Amendment", "Cosby invokes 5th in deposition, wins Civil case, doesn't get charged with criminal case at all" or "what actually happened" you'd pick which?

Potentially he may be able to claim some money for wrongful conviction.

I mean, he was wrongfully prosecuted and then imprisoned, even if it was for an unsatisfying reason. It depends on the laws of that state whether or not there is any recompense due for it.

Because surely nothing sounds more like "justice" than rapists receiving a payout for getting their convictions quashed on a technicality.

Meh, it could be worse. There have been cases where the victim has been forced to pay the perpetrator, monthly, for decades as a direct consequence of having been sexually assaulted and everyone broadly seems not to be too upset about that (despite that sounding a step worse than the perp getting paid once by the state, maybe). Specifically in cases where a woman sexually assaults a man (or boy) and becomes pregnant as a consequence.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The prosecutor who secured the confession with the promise of no criminal conviction was not the same one who decided that verbal agreement - allegedly the arguement was that lacking a signed agreement between Cosby and the State, the State was not bound to honour the immunity - could go fuck itself and initiated criminal proceedings and used the confessions made as evidence to secure the initial conviction. And to be honest, no, financial justice is seldom any kind of justice because frankly there's no way to calculate the value of human dignity and the violation thereof.

The 'well' I refer to here is the reputation of the office of the State Prosecutor as an entity that will honour its agreements. Their actions have undermined the law, aspects of the American constitution as I understand it, and their own authority as law professionals. And of course, now a confessed sexual predator walks free. They have fucked this whole thing up a filthy drainpipe and they should be marched into the US Attorney General's office to have strips torn off them for this gross misconduct.

The State could've still went after Cosby just fine (assuming new evidence came to light, Castor said so himself), it's just that they couldn't use the testimony from civil, which Castor told the new prosecutor before the trial. How is getting both no criminal justice and no civil justice better than getting civil justice? Sure, civil justice isn't nearly as emotionally satisfying but in the end, money can have much larger effect on the victim and family than Cosby sitting in prison, which has very little tangible effect. That's not implying that rich people should be allowed to pay their way out of prison (since people love spinning other people's statements on this forum), but saying money is basically no justice isn't true either.

The initial prosecutor, when considering whether to prosecute Cosby, would have factored in to his likelihood of conviction Cosby's public reputation as a much loved public figure and that Cosby would have extremely high quality lawyers capable of making the prosecutor's job far, far harder than the average public defender would. We all know poor people are bundled into prison on crummy evidence (often via plea deals) where a better lawyer could probably get them off. Even worse, some of them are innocent.

$3 million is cheap to Bill Cosby. A minor irritation. As a proportion of his wealth, that's a bit like giving the average Escapist user a <$1000 fine. Particularly cheap for allowing him to walk around in decent society like the respectable, cuddly grandpa figure he worked so hard to cultivate rather than the rapist he is. The reason we have things like prison sentences is because we deem people handing over a tiny chunk of their fortunes insufficient penalty for serious crimes. If $3 million is fair for rape, you may as well argue that Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch should be allowed to murder people just as long as they hand over enough millions to the next of kin. Maybe have package deals, like $10 billion to be allowed to kill a whole town.

That money is not enough is I suspect how most of Cosby's victims feel. I suspect if someone raped you and hushed it up with a few million, you might find the money small compensation for the insult to your wellbeing and dignity when you saw the offender strolling down red carpets, laughing with the press in interviews, paid millions for ads and voiceovers and feted as "America's dad". Let's also remember that the vast majority of Cosby's victims got precisely nothing because of the statute of limitations. Never mind that the reluctance to pursue again likely comes in large part to the impracticality and intimidating prospect of raising a case against an wealthy and enormously successful person back in the day.

I don't think Cosby's reputation would have much to do with getting him off. I would think rape cases in general are hard to prove as it is a lot of "he said, she said" going on with evidence being in short supply. Regardless if I like someone or dislike someone, I'd have a hard time being apart of sending them to jail if I wasn't pretty fucking sure they did it. 3 million may be cheap to Cosby but to the victim, it could really help her and her family (assuming she isn't already rich). It's far better than getting nothing, which probably would've happened. Anyone is allowed to commit any crime to where there isn't proof to find them guilty. There wasn't proof to find Cosby guilty, that was the problem, it had nothing to do with money. If Cosby was an averagely wealthy person, he still would've got off. The other victims could make cases against Cosby and it's not like they have to pay lawyers to go against Cosby, it's the State that prosecutes and if the State has a good case, they'll prosecute. I'm not sure when the statute of limitations was up for the other victims but Castor made it clear publicly in 2005 that he wasn't going to prosecute so if any other victim was within the statute of limitations, they should've come forward. If anyone's argument is that Castor "messed up" other victims coming forward thereby going past their statute of limitations, that's a misnomer as well.

 

[Agema]

snip

Absolutely, because we can always trust you to point out that in the case of a serial rapist like Bill Cosby, the real victims are men.