Previous  1 ... 13  14  15  16  17

christ, folks in here really just all sobbing for harvey? what the fuck

girls these days gotta grow up with fucking hd bodycams to be believed by the peanut gallery

   

Yeah, I can't recall seeing a multiple-time rapist get this much credibility handed to him by people who you think would normally want to see someone like that strung up from a lamp-post by his dick. As Negan, who knew a thing or two about what should be done to rapists, would incredulously say:

   

Nobody's crying for that Hollyweird sleaze bag and what the people in the "peanut gallery" as you put it are concerned about is the fact that he was found guilty with no actual evidence other than the accusation. So, explain to me how that's justice and why that method of finding guilt can't and won't be transferred to other crimes?

But as a socialist/communist I can see why the accusation method of finding guilt wouldn't be all that abhorrent to you. It's much easier and less messy to put people you don't like or agree with in prison based on an accusation than provable facts because if it wasn't Stalin wouldn't have had to build his gulags.

   

Juries and judges have the right, and the obligation, to believe an accusation if they regard it as credible. And that pig Weinstein had multiple credible accusations against him heard in that court room. Not everything requires a ton of CSI-grade forensic evidence to justify a guilty verdict. That this got turned into some circus where people are venting their own personal politics into it is really kind of disgusting. Comparing it some kind of Soviet-grade show trial is even worse.

And Harvey also kept a panic list of those who he was terrified could testify about his conduct, and he was so worried that he even sent a private investigator after them. This was among 1000 other pages of documents given to the court as evidence of his activities and mindset:

https://calgarysun.com/entertainment/ce ... 0574106ff5

   

Interesting you'd say that given a Judge has no right to assign guilt or innocence in a jury trial. At best all they can do is instruct the jury and for the record they can't instruct the jury to believe witnesses or it's grounds for a mistrial.

So, the people in the jury who believed the witnesses and were willing to overlook the lack of physical or corroborating evidence are the ones who think an accusation should be enough to assign guilt, not the judge. Because, if the link is to be believed and they needed actual evidence even of the corroborating variety before making a finding they wouldn't have gotten it till after they'd rendered their verdict which might have been different from the one they did find.

But what I find odd is that Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty of rape because his accusers kept coming back for more consensual sex and the jury thought that invalidated their accusations. But, the women who accused Weinstein did the exact same thing and got him convicted. So, if anyone who tells you this verdict wasn't because of the undue influence the "#MeToo" movement has with the liberal states court systems, they're wrong.



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51621041


Unfortunately some people think I'm defending Harvey Weinstein which couldn't be farther from the truth. He deserves to be where he is or hanging from a lamp standard. But, unfortunately he's also the first win for an special interest group trying to force the American justice system to alter the way it has always done business and accept that accusations are the only evidence necessary to ascertain guilt or innocence. So, if that doesn't scare people they've got a problem.

   

I said no such thing. I said a judge or jury can assign guilt without forensic or physical evidence, based on the testimony of victims and witnesses only. And it turns out in the Weinstein trial that there was material evidence anyway, as shown by the court revealing today that among the documents was a list of suspected enemies that Weinstein believed would rat on him. Regardless of that, as shown by a judge or jury being able to levy guilt in other trials for murder even if a body can't be found, it's clear that their power to render a guilty verdict is quite sweeping and comprehensive.

Ghomeshi is an entirely wrong comparison too. One, it was all consensual - there was no evidence of coercion in any of his acts, just that he was weird and kinky and liked doing stupid surprises on his partners in the middle of the act. And, two, the alleged victims basically engaged in a conspiracy against him by meeting each other to co-ordinate their stories. There's no suggestion at all that any of Weinstein's victims did anything like that.

And I see no victory for any special interest group here. All that happened was that a judge and jury took the accusations and stories of multiple women who'd been attacked by a monster seriously, and found him guilty for his actions. On every conceivable level the system worked as it was supposed to. There is nothing at all here to indicate that this was a miscarriage of justice due to the social or cultural politics of the moment.

   

What is this Saudi Arabia? A woman can’t be believed unless she has multiple witnesses?

Victim testimony is evidence. Always has been. If your neighbor came into your house and attacked you without any witnesses he would be arrested based on your accusation and tried on the basis of your word against his and which is more credible. And if multiple victims had the same accusation that would add weight to your accusation. I don’t know why people think dec assault should be different.

   

Of course it isn't Saudi Arabia but, by the same token it also isn't 1953 Russia where an accusation is reason enough to incarcerate someone with no more proof than other accusations.

The law doesn't state "where there's smoke there's fire" it states "One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty". In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged" and, in my opinion that standard of proof was never achieved in court.

So I'll say this again. I could give a shit about that piece of human garbage Harvey Weinstein but I do have a very big problem with the process that was used to put him where he so deservedly belongs. Because it has the potential to become a mechanisms for settling scores and attacking with impunity people for real or perceived past wrongs.

   

buddy, innocent people get convicted of shit all the time. in america they sometimes even kill you even though it's widely known you're innocent.

but of all crimes, rape is probably one of the easiest to get away with aside from maybe jaywalking. it's basically legal if you clean up after. since every girl is a gold-digging lying whore, after all

you know folks get convicted of murder without witnesses, bodies, prints, or anything, right? shit happens. legal system needs a reboot. but as far as false convictions, i imagine a lot more people are in jail innocent of murder than those innocent of rape.

   

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. My argument has sweet fuck all to do with Harvey Weinstein who's just the name on the docket. This is about the burden of proof and the justice system. He's guilty no doubt but, that's not my point and never has been. My issues are with a system that allows accusations to become the proof needed to acquire a conviction. But, for some reason people want to forget that and focus in on the fact that it's the scum bag Harvey Weinstein instead of questioning the methodology of how the court got to their decision.

So, if people are willing to accept that accusations with no physical or corroborating evidence are now evidence enough to garner a conviction then, they'd better be prepared for this to get out of hand because it's like you, said.

Alot of innocent people will get caught up in this shitstorm and if that happens I sincerely hope the people who think this is fine if it's done to someone as despicable as Harvey Weinstein are ready to accept that a precedence has been set and it'll be applied to other people innocent or not.

But on the odd chance it isn't applied to any other court cases going forward then it'll become quite apparent that the state of NY has no compunctions about ignoring the basic tenets of the American justice system just to garner a conviction.

   

I think that case was headed the same way until the defense figured out the 3
women were colluding with each other after telling police they had no contact.

It was only then that the case fell apart.

   

   

I’ll remind you that accused sex offenders are acquitted all the time, Jian Gomeshi for example

As I said before, it has always been possible to convict a criminal - for any crime - based primarily on the accusations of the victim, if the court finds the accusations credible. This is not convicting someone ‘without evidence’. Victim testimony IS evidence.

Nor is it automatically convicting someone simply because they’re accused. The credibility of the accusations are tested and weighed. Again Ghomeshi being a prime example


There is nothing new or special about this.

   

Far as I'm concerned the POS got off easy. 23 years he'll be out in 15 for good behavior.

   

So you're saying that if I accuse you of sexual assault and I can convince a jury of that fact with no other evidence, you're automatically guilty? If that statement is true how does a person defend themselves against these accusation since, if there is no evidence needed for a conviction there will likely be no evidence available to exonerate a person.

Which means that, if the accusation is now considered evidence enough, the presumption of innocence is no longer a factor because the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything. No wonder the prosecutors love it. No work necessary to get a conviction. Just find someone to come forward and make an accusation and standby to reap the rewards of a job well done.

I'm sorry but that isn't justice it's a witch hunt and even if in this case they got the right pervert it doesn't mean that in the future using this methodology, innocent people won't be falsely accused by people looking for financial gain, political reasons or personal revenge and convicted of crimes they never committed.

So, not only did the jury find him guilty based on accusations, he well may get a reversal because of the apparently obscene amount of time he was sentenced to.



https://globalnews.ca/news/4447716/trud ... s-unspent/

   

Previous  1 ... 13  14  15  16  17