Originally posted by Bardock42
They may have consequences, that really depends on the settlement I suppose, but they are required by the legal system to speak truth when under oath in a courtroom.Criminal cases are not prosecuted for or by the victims, but by the government for the good of society.
I don't get the point of paying a victim off if you can still go to jail. I'd always thought once a settlement is reached..that is that.
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't get the point of paying a victim off if you can still go to jail. I'd always thought once a settlement is reached..that is that.
There are two avenues in the justice system, civil cases and criminal cases. A civil case brings two people against each other, and one demands some form of reparations from the other for damages done. If a settlement is reached it usually 4precludes the wronged party from pursuing further civil action, in that case they can't sue. A civil case never ends with someone in jail though. That's what criminal cases are for. In essence they are a case that is in the interest of the public. If someone was raped or murdered, it is important not just for the victim, for the public that the perpetrator is punished, stopped from doing so again and hopefully rehabilitated.
I very much doubt it is legal to put a clause in a contract that would prevent you from testifying in a criminal court, such a contract would likely be void, at least that clause.
Originally posted by Bardock42
There are two avenues in the justice system, civil cases and criminal cases. A civil case brings two people against each other, and one demands some form of reparations from the other for damages done. If a settlement is reached it usually 4precludes the wronged party from pursuing further civil action, in that case they can't sue. A civil case never ends with someone in jail though. That's what criminal cases are for. In essence they are a case that is in the interest of the public. If someone was raped or murdered, it is important not just for the victim, for the public that the perpetrator is punished, stopped from doing so again and hopefully rehabilitated.I very much doubt it is legal to put a clause in a contract that would prevent you from testifying in a criminal court, such a contract would likely be void, at least that clause.
Why wasn't he taken to criminal court then?
Originally posted by fcnsc
Gorgeous and distinctive film
The Bill Cosby Rape Allegations film? I hear it is beautifully shot and Cosby himself advised on the date rape scenes so as to make sure they were as realistic as possible. He even coached some of the actresses behind the scenes. Such a gentlemen was he, even bringing them food and drinks, but mostly drinks for some reason. I guess acting is thirsty work. Very tiring too! Those girls were always taking naps.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cosbys-history-spanish-fly-jokes-comes-back-haunt-him
Agreed, also adding to above.
So poor black men go to jail for rape and breaking the law, and thats ok as long as a cop does not kill them for doing something wrong, but this guy can rape young women and everyone remains aloof.
He's admitted to the rape and molestations as well.
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/07/91063/bill-cosby-rape-allegations-prison
"COSBY WILL PROBABLY NEVER SEE THE INSIDE OF AN ACTUAL COURTROOM FOR HIS ALLEGED CRIMES."
The tax burden is on the middle class?!
I'm not incredulous at the statement, in and of itself. But we've strayed quite a bit, it seems.
Anyway...
I've seen Cosby perform twice live in my life. It was a delight. And he was a positive influence on so many throughout his career. So I have a profound sadness at all of this. At this point, the allegations and evidence appear overwhelming, so there's no reasonable defense of his actions. And that includes weighing them against the good he did and the joy he brought. There's no excuse, and he's being rightly condemned. I do still have issue with how it was handled; i.e. a media circus that condemned prematurely without sufficient evidence, and perpetuated the story through a desire for clicks instead of journalistic or legal integrity. That the evidence eventually materialized to corroborate the allegations is fortunate (as opposed to staying buried), but is not a vindication of the process, which resembled a witch hunt more than a thorough investigation.
The second time I saw him perform, it was just after Nelson Mandela died. Cosby had had the chance to meet him in South Africa some years back. Cosby opened his show not with any jokes, but with a story of his time with Mandela, and how Mandela had made a personal impact on him in just a short time. Without being haevy-handed about it, Cosby put this in perspective with Mandela's life and accomplishments, and at the end asked for a moment of silence for Mandela. It was a moving story, and took probably 15-20 minutes. He transitioned skillfully into the comedy, but I remember that story more than any joke or bit he ran that night. It's hard to reconcile that man on stage with a rapist. We know it's entirely possible, and that oftentimes brutally - and criminally - immoral actions are committed by otherwise kind people. But it's just sobering to see it in such profound dichotomy like that.
In our current culture, it's easy to become so desensitized to these sorts of terrible stories that we give up caring about them, or simply throw anyone under the bus who even whiffs of controversy. And it's figures like Cosby that, likely, drive many to that mentality, because of the public image they had cultivated. It's a betrayal of public trust. I just hope that those who are jumping on for no other reason than to make memes or pile on, keep a sense of perspective about it. The internet creates a distance from these things; they become abstractions rather than actual acts made by real people. So I cringe a bit when I see, say, the "Pill Cosby" memes. Not because we shouldn't be allowed to make such things (we absolutely should). But because it's easy to lose the actual tragedy of the truth in the mad dash for the next hot take or viral image.
Originally posted by DigiFunnily enough I always make those sorts of jokes. There's an rso working for the same "company" I work for and I always say "He's a great guy, he just likes touching little boys" and stuff like that.
The tax burden is on the middle class?!I'm not incredulous at the statement, in and of itself. But we've strayed quite a bit, it seems.
Anyway...
I've seen Cosby perform twice live in my life. It was a delight. And he was a positive influence on so many throughout his career. So I have a profound sadness at all of this. At this point, the allegations and evidence appear overwhelming, so there's no reasonable defense of his actions. And that includes weighing them against the good he did and the joy he brought. There's no excuse, and he's being rightly condemned. I do still have issue with how it was handled; i.e. a media circus that condemned prematurely without sufficient evidence, and perpetuated the story through a desire for clicks instead of journalistic or legal integrity. That the evidence eventually materialized to corroborate the allegations is fortunate (as opposed to staying buried), but is not a vindication of the process, which resembled a witch hunt more than a thorough investigation.
The second time I saw him perform, it was just after Nelson Mandela died. Cosby had had the chance to meet him in South Africa some years back. Cosby opened his show not with any jokes, but with a story of his time with Mandela, and how Mandela had made a personal impact on him in just a short time. Without being haevy-handed about it, Cosby put this in perspective with Mandela's life and accomplishments, and at the end asked for a moment of silence for Mandela. It was a moving story, and took probably 15-20 minutes. He transitioned skillfully into the comedy, but I remember that story more than any joke or bit he ran that night. It's hard to reconcile that man on stage with a rapist. We know it's entirely possible, and that oftentimes brutally - and criminally - immoral actions are committed by otherwise kind people. But it's just sobering to see it in such profound dichotomy like that.
In our current culture, it's easy to become so desensitized to these sorts of terrible stories that we give up caring about them, or simply throw anyone under the bus who even whiffs of controversy. And it's figures like Cosby that, likely, drive many to that mentality, because of the public image they had cultivated. It's a betrayal of public trust. I just hope that those who are jumping on for no other reason than to make memes or pile on, keep a sense of perspective about it. The internet creates a distance from these things; they become abstractions rather than actual acts made by real people. So I cringe a bit when I see, say, the "Pill Cosby" memes. Not because we shouldn't be allowed to make such things (we absolutely should). But because it's easy to lose the actual tragedy of the truth in the mad dash for the next hot take or viral image.
Which brings me to a personal opinion part of how one should feel about this sort of behavior. I realize it's futile to go by popular public opinion or media because they will demonize anyone no matter what their vice is.
But do you judge a man by a sole act or by everything as a whole? Should we fondly look at the good times of a man who murders hookers or do we condemn him? Or is that just people not wanting to look like a monster if they were put in a similar situation?
Or are we more wanting to discuss everything as a whole when it doesn't or can't pertain to your situation?
Ie a girl reading about a boy raping priest, man reading about Bill Cosby drug raping girls, man reading about Gary Ridgway, etc?
It makes for an interesting mental activity imo. Is a person a monster for one exclusive naughty thing they do or should we save the judgement exclusively for their vice? Obviously you'll see cases on both ends of which seem unreasonable but still.
Or in other words "Bill Cosby is a swell person, now if he could just keep his raping of women to a minimum he'd move up to great!"
Does this sort of joke have merit if it weren't meant as a joke? Obviously people saw him a great person before they found out he liked drugged out women, so can we factor it in and move him as somewhere less than great or should he just be burned at the stake?
Basically how should you judge a man in this situation?
Originally posted by One Big Mob
Funnily enough I always make those sorts of jokes. There's an rso working for the same "company" I work for and I always say "He's a great guy, he just likes touching little boys" and stuff like that.Which brings me to a personal opinion part of how one should feel about this sort of behavior. I realize it's futile to go by popular public opinion or media because they will demonize anyone no matter what their vice is.
But do you judge a man by a sole act or by everything as a whole? Should we fondly look at the good times of a man who murders hookers or do we condemn him? Or is that just people not wanting to look like a monster if they were put in a similar situation?
Or are we more wanting to discuss everything as a whole when it doesn't or can't pertain to your situation?
Ie a girl reading about a boy raping priest, man reading about Bill Cosby drug raping girls, man reading about Gary Ridgway, etc?It makes for an interesting mental activity imo. Is a person a monster for one exclusive naughty thing they do or should we save the judgement exclusively for their vice? Obviously you'll see cases on both ends of which seem unreasonable but still.
Or in other words "Bill Cosby is a swell person, now if he could just keep his raping of women to a minimum he'd move up to great!"
Does this sort of joke have merit if it weren't meant as a joke? Obviously people saw him a great person before they found out he liked drugged out women, so can we factor it in and move him as somewhere less than great or should he just be burned at the stake?
Basically how should you judge a man in this situation?
These are interesting questions without easy answers. Time's response above deals with how he should be treated from this point on. And, while I'm less dramatic about it, I do think justice should be served for the crimes. But that doesn't deal with how he's remembered. That deals only with what his punishment should be.
The moment of silence for Mandela was a powerful moment for everyone in attendance that night. Cosby being a rapist doesn't remove the power from that moment for me. Nor the first performance I saw, where I laughed so hard I had tears rolling down my face. So I see it as a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water to forget everything good that he's done. He also did a lot for empowerment of blacks and educational initiatives, despite occasional comments that were controversial even within black communities.
What's the Christian phrase, hate the sin, love the sinner? We are, none of us, one thing. And we are, most of us, mixtures of good and bad (though, I hope, nothing as bad as rape). It seems like the only reason I'd throw out the good entirely was if I was caving to the fear that, in saying that, I might be seen as defending Cosby. Which I'm not, of course, and I agree with whatever punishment is fitting of the crimes. But we're so reactionary, if I were on television and said the exact same words I've typed in this and my last post, I'd probably be destroyed in the media for not being perceived as entirely against him.
So obviously a phrase like "Cosby is a swell person" isn't an appropriate phrase. But you used that line to illustrate a point. My comments above explain my feelings on it somewhat, but it's so emotionally charged, and such a heinous crime, that it's hard to say anything for certain.