🇳🇱
@johnabs I agree, cosby was wrong and got out on a technicality. Im not sure that justifies it. in fact the fact that he can legitimately rape someone and have it proven yet wind up free on a technicality is kinda the reason people arent cool with it.
The thing is, you can persue the civil cases and get compensation regardless of whether or not Cosby was convicted criminally or not. So I'm not really sure that justifies the plea deal.
Either way I think the bigger issue is that the prosecuter made a plea deal that they shouldnt have had the ability to make in the first place, therein lies the problem.
@freemo I wouldn't necessarily call it a technicality. He wouldn't have testified in either case if not compelled to do so (as is his right), thus the deal seemed to be a good way to insure at least one of the cases panned out for the victim, rather than both falling through.
Consequently, the proof that was relied upon to both claim a settlement and convict him was his own testimony. That proof wouldn't have been available unless he intentionally incriminated himself on the promise he would be given immunity from the criminal charges.
The real crux was "Cosby and his legal team reasonably believed that his testimony would not be used against him". I agree the DA went beyond his authority in the deal, and should have sought a judicial hearing to confirm the deal was valid, but since he didn't here we are. And as much as we don't think justice was appropriately carried out, the court has to consider the rights of the accused and the promises of the government for "innocent until proven guilty" to mean anything.
@johnabs The reason I'd still call it a technicality is because, we know, at this point that he **is** guilty and he rapped a person.. so knowing that the man is a rapist anything shor tof him being in jail is indicative of the "system not working"...
Everything else is just details. Now was the result strictly abiding by the word of the law.. yea... but we still have a known rapist roaming free.. so clearly the law didnt serve true justice, even if it did follow the rules.
@freemo Sorry, had to take a break from shoulder pain.
Again, I agree he should be in prison (or worse honestly), but he shouldn't be if the legal system violated his rights to put him there, regardless of his innocence or guilt.
In theory at least, our legal system is based on Blackstone's ratio: "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent to suffer". And the adversarial nature and rights guaranteed by our legal system are in place to hopefully make sure innocents aren't forced to suffer for crimes they didn't commit. Unfortunately, that may lead to guilty individuals being freed, but I'd make the case that maximizing type 1 errors to mitigate type 2 errors is the way we prevent the most innocent people from losing their rights and freedom.
Does this work perfectly in practice, especially since it has become much more difficult for individuals to exercise their rights? Absolutely not, but since the legal system failed to do its due diligence, Cosby has the right to be free, despite of his moral and legal failures. Hence, a clear example of a type 1 error appearing directly due to our system's fear of making type 2 errors.
To conclude, I'd make the following point that I think wraps this up nicely: justice is not just unless administered justly.
@johnabs I also agree that if the system violated his rights he shouldnt be here.. The point is the system shouldnt have violated his rights so he could have been put there.
@freemo Yes, precisely, but I suppose I was disagreeing with the last point about the law not serving true justice.
I think it did serve it to the best of its own ability in light of the facts of the case, and this just happened to be an unfortunate series of circumstances that prevented justice from being applied in a just way.
@johnabs Then that needs fixing, not that I have the solution for how.
@freemo I believe Cosby is in the wrong, but the reason he was freed is actually more nuanced, and was caused by a prosecutorial error and a lack of judicial oversight years ago.
The DA, during Cosby's initial testimony, offered him criminal immunity in exchange for a "forced" testimony during the simultaneous civil proceeding (i.e. he wouldn't be charged criminally but was forced to testify in the lawsuit that was going on at the time).
This deal was made by the prosecutor as he wasn't confident in the burden of proof being held up in criminal court but thought he could get justice for the plaintiff in civil proceedings instead (in criminal cases, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas in civil cases, it's "the preponderance of evidence"). Ultimately this deal led to a settlement of (I think) $3.4 million dollars for the victim during the initial cases, but in exchange for criminal immunity. While not perfect, it's certainly better than nothing for the plaintiff if a jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict, which was especially likely if he didn't testify by exercising his 5th amendment rights.
The new case that was opened leveraged transcripts of his initial confession, which he as promised by the initial DA would never be used to prosecute him. Thus, they violated his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination to obtain the evidence, and he was let go. This was all determined completely irrespective of whether or not he was actually guilty, but due to this error the Supreme Court determined his rights were violated so badly that he couldn't be tried again (in a 5-4 or 6-3 decision). The dissent was only caused by the decision of upholding double Jeopardy in this case, not whether his rights were violated.
While I think he should have been put away, this was ultimately a compromise by the initial DA, and a further mistake by current prosecutors to leverage evidence that was "fruit from the poisonous tree".
P.S. IDC about weed, people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt other people.