Bill Cosby
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2017, 11:52 AM
RE: Bill Cosby
(23-06-2017 10:45 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  He may be not guilty of the crimes he's accused of, but he's guilty of being a piece of shit.

The case of Cosby and that of Gomeshi, a very similar one from Canada, might not have resulted in criminal guilt, but there is very little doubt in the public eye that both these men, if not downright rapists and molestors, are certainly 50 shades of shady. That's what makes their guilt extemely difficult to assert without reasonnable doubt (and that's actualy a rather good thing), but the not guilty verdict to ''nice'' (and that's not a bad thing either). Its like we could use a verdict that says ''not guilty, but dude you are messed up''.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
23-06-2017, 12:00 PM
RE: Bill Cosby
Then we have the so-called "Scottish verdict"...

Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scotish law, a criminal trial can end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" or "not guilty"). The result is a current perception that the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict, and where the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence for a "guilty" verdict.

I'd say this is Cosby's case.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like SYZ's post
23-06-2017, 02:27 PM
RE: Bill Cosby
The punishment of Cosby is one thing. A minor thing in my opinion.

What this case is about, is whether it is legally OK to sedate women in order to have sex with them.

IF this case approves of this method, then some enterprising upstart ought to start manufacturing and marketing "sedating for sex" drugs onto the commercial market. This could prove to be a big industry. Cosby successfully landed as many as 60 women via this method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2017, 07:59 PM
RE: Bill Cosby
(23-06-2017 02:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The punishment of Cosby is one thing. A minor thing in my opinion.

What this case is about, is whether it is legally OK to sedate women in order to have sex with them.

IF this case approves of this method, then some enterprising upstart ought to start manufacturing and marketing "sedating for sex" drugs onto the commercial market. This could prove to be a big industry. Cosby successfully landed as many as 60 women via this method.

I don't think that's what this case is about.

There are plenty of legal methods of reducing one's inhibitors (e.g. alcohol).

What this case hinged upon was ... consent.

Well, also context.

So there's a difference (judging by the verdict) between:
a) consuming chemical constraint-inhibitors as a morally-competent consenting agent in order to e.g. go out and have a good time with friends and
b) consuming chemical constraint-inhibitors as a morally-competent consenting agent in e.g. an intimate scenario where all the impending-procreation signals are evident.

Meaning that in scenario a) you get a verdict of: "no, she wasn't asking for it" and in scenario b) you get a verdict of: "what did she expect?"

There's an interesting deeper question regarding the psychology of consent in a scenario with a unequal power-dynamic i.e. intimidation ... not through direct force necessarily but intimidation through status i.e. unconscious force-potential.

In a Darwinian context this case was about 'reciprocity' and 'sexual selection'.

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
23-06-2017, 08:13 PM
RE: Bill Cosby
(23-06-2017 07:37 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(23-06-2017 07:23 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  If he wasn't rich and famous his life would be completely ruined. People only have sympathy for him because he's rich and famous.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it?

He's tarnished no matter what any jury might say.

If he's found guilty, the tarnish is deserved.

But if he's innocent, he's still a pariah.

The accusation is enough to ruin anyone. And if they're not guilty, their lives are still destroyed.

In Canada, a similar trial acquitted the accused because the complainants lied and lied and lied under oath. The Crown Prosecutor botched the case so badly I'm surprised he still has a job. And the defence attorney shredded what was left off the prosecution's case. (I have no doubt that, if the complainants needed an attorney, they would have hired the accused's attorney in a heartbeat, if they could afford her.)

And yet the acquitted man's career is effectively over. He, too, is now a pariah in journalism and broadcast circles, even though he was found not guilty.

I wouldn't call still having millions of dollars to play with exactly "ruined".

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: