No remorse
Another victory in the war on Karens:
Bill Cosby is being released from prison after the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated his 2018 conviction on sexual assault charges and judgment of sentence. Victoria Valentino, one of Cosby’s accusers, told CNN she was “stunned” by the court’s decision.
Valentino said she had recently received a letter stating that Cosby’s parole was preemptively denied due to a lack of remorse and a refusal to participate in programs for abusers.
She said that when she first heard about Cosby’s release she was “shocked.” Valentino said her phone was bombarded with messages from media, loved ones and survivors.
“For this to come out of left field is — it’s a gut punch,” Valentino said. “There’s no other way to describe it.”
Valentino said the decision sends Cosby’s accusers “back to square one.”
Serves them right. They’re Karens.
Andrea Constand and her attorneys said today’s opinion to vacate Bill Cosby’s conviction is disappointing and could discourage others survivors of sexual assault from coming forward.
“Today’s majority decision regarding Bill Cosby is not only disappointing but of concern in that it may discourage those who seek justice for sexual assault in the criminal justice system from reporting or participating in the prosecution of the assailant or may force a victim to choose between filing either a criminal or civil action,” the statement said.
Just because they can’t possibly win and the whole process is humiliating? That’s no reason. Karens.
Ugh. I read the linked articles, and…. Dammit. The SCOP seems to have the right end of the law, here, appalling as the outcome is.
The evil part here isn’t the court’s decision, nor even the original prosecutor’s decision to grant Cosby immunity in exchange for forcing him to testify under oath in the civil case (he was trying to get the victim ~something~, even if it was just the civil court victory). It’s that the fact that half a dozen women weren’t seen as sufficiently credible witnesses to have him charged in the first place (and sadly, that perception was probably correct, in the sense that the jury probably never would’ve convicted him just on their word about what happened). The fact that this wasn’t He Said/She Said, but rather, He Said/She+She+She+She+She+She Said, and yet still isn’t enough to be considered a viable case, is where the fault lies.
This could become the basis for a new joke: How many women does it take to overcome one man’s plea of not guilty? Answer: Give us an infinity of women, and he’ll still go free.
It’s disgusting.
I agree with Freemage @#1.
Trouble is, the old legal principle that it is better that 10 guilty people go free than for one innocent person to get convicted still applies. No easy way round it. On the face of it, the SCOP got it right.
Unforgivable error by the DA, seeing it now I am surprised it did not happen earlier. But it is worth noting that there is not even a hint of a suggestion that he is in fact innocent. His attorneys did not even bother with the argument that he did not do it after all.
Omar, I have some problem with that legal principle. If a non-violent offender who committed a victimless crime, I have no problem with them going free. But when it is a rapist or a murderer, things change. People are endangered. I’m not sure Cosby is going to do it again; he’s awfully old. But his victims still have to deal with the pain.
Yes, the decision was correct in all legal principles. But letting a guilty person go free on an issue like this…why not give him a new trial without the offending evidence? Let him go only if they don’t convict him.
Naif, one thing about that argument is, as I understand (IANAL), is that innocence isn’t a basis for appeal. Only technical issues like rights violations. Perhaps Screechy could clarify if I have been taught correctly.
iknklast,
“Innocence isn’t grounds for appeal” is at most only true in a technical sense. For example, you can’t introduce new evidence on an appeal and say “see, this proves I’m innocent.” Courts of appeal don’t retry the case, they decide whether the lower court erred. (There are ways to seek relief based on newly discovered evidence, but it’s not a direct appeal of the conviction.)
But one of the ways in which the trial court may have erred is in entering a judgment that is not supported by the evidence. So in any ordinary sense of the English language, yes, a convicted defendant can appeal that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to convict. (That can mean that the defendant is actually innocent, or just that there wasn’t sufficient proof of guilt.) The exact standard of review will vary depending on the jurisdiction, but it’s usually something like “no rational trier of fact could have convicted based on the evidence in the record.” That’s obviously a tough standard to meet.
But then, so are appeals on what you might characterize as “technicalities.” (Which others might describe as “important constitutional principles,” but that’s an argument for another day.) Because in addition to proving that the trial court erred on some issue (e.g. allowed some evidence to be admitted over an objection that should have been sustained), the appellant has to show that it wasn’t “harmless error,” i.e. that it could reasonably have affected the outcome. That makes sense — trial judges have to make dozens if not hundreds of rulings in the course of a trial, and we can’t have convictions being vacated every time there’s even a minor error — but it’s a pretty tough standard too.
The vast majority of criminal appeals fail, regardless of what grounds they’re brought on.
The issue on which Cosby won his appeal was pretty fundamental. It wasn’t (in the eyes of the majority) merely a matter of an evidentiary ruling, but whether there should have been a trial in the first place. (Note: I haven’t read the full opinion yet, only some excerpts and commentary.)
iknklast:
Another time-worn principle of jurisprudence: ‘justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.’ The law must not be seen as a braying ass letting crims go free on ‘technicalities’. I would assume that most sexual assaults are male-on-female, and are made possible by our species’ relatively pronounced sexual dimorphism re other primates. Also, they usually occur in situations where there are no witnesses, making such ‘technicalities’ possible. The law under which the Cosby trial proceeded made no allowance for the multiple female accusers, and effectively said that the testimony of the said multiple female accusers was negated by Cosby’s defence, ‘he said, she said’, and lack of corroborating witnesses. None the less, in the refined atmosphere of modern Australian jurisprudence, it probably would not pass the pub test. (A circle of drinkers in a pub is generally regarded as a pretty infallible jury.)
However and arising out of the above Your Honour, there is another pretty effective remedy. Dimorphically disadvantaged women can even things up one helluva lot using a one-shot weapon that can never be captured and turned against them, and which I first read about in a martial arts magazine years ago. I will not put details of its construction on the Internet, but we recently had a young Frenchwoman visit us; a relative of my wife’s, and based while in Australia in Redfern, one of the most down-market areas of Sydney. She told us of her concern for her safety when walking the Redfern streets at whatever hour of the day or night, so I put a pocket version of the weapon together for her, and urged her to practice using it. She was delighted, now carries it with her wherever she goes, and by her own account feels a lot safer and more confident.
I will pass details of it to Ophelia and she can pass it to whoever contacts her.
Biology calls, urges, lusts and whatever else it does. Technology answers.
iknklast:
While I don’t disagree in principle, this kind of thing opens the door to harassment and corruption and I think we should be very wary of it indeed. We’ve all learned lately, if we didn’t already know, how little we can rely on checks and balances, assuming they are even really there in the first place.
I wonder if Cosby maintains he’s innocent because of opportunity. Maybe he thinks that simply because these women were in his orbit that it constitutes consent. Why else would they be there than only to satisfy his needs? This is how narcissism and misogyny work after all.