Support NeoGAF

[shira]

With all due respect, this perspective is wrong.

Early childhood education that effectively ingrains the value of consent into the minds of young men and women could absolutely have prevented even the most prevalent serial abusers from developing their malformed ideologies. In addition to a sex problem, this is also an issue with a lack of empathy, which requires a different and equally important approach to early intervention.

People have raped and abused each other for millennia, and those abusers faced all manner of punishments and retribution that did nothing to address the issue on a macro level. Only the dawn of modern mental health care, the rise of sex education and the concept of abuse prevention and awareness have stemmed the tide.

By introducing these concepts very early in a child's life, they shape their worldview with a level of gravity that simply cannot be achieved later on. It's also worth noting that the best programs are about teaching what's right in addition to what's wrong, and emphasizing the positive elements of touch that empower kids to truly internalize the difference between things that make them feel loved and things that make them feel strange.

Is this applicable to Trump too?

I'm not sure these kinds of rules are applicable once you attain a certain tier of wealth and celebrity. Your entire mindset and world view outlook are warped when you become someone ultra-famous

 

[A Link to the Past]

And in a he said she said case i cant see any other decision from an AI jury than not guilty within seconds

True, but on the other hand, AI juries would be much more willing to convict cops.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Reminds me of that episode from Boondocks about R Kelly trial

 

[DOWN]

He admitted to alcohol, but not to drugging her. Or did I miss major bombshell where his defense sided with prosecution and admitted to drugging?

They admitted to Benadryl from my understanding but the prosecution disagrees with the claim

 

[shoelacer]

Cannot wait for AI juries. The common man is not capable of the critical thinking required for deliberating criminal cases.

Lmao, yeah, this is just a great idea

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/new-program-decides-criminality-from-facial-features

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...bit-racist-and-sexist-biases-research-reveals

 

[Oersted]

In case someone wondered why women have issues coming foward about being raped, here is example 495928*


*Actual numbers are higher

 

[airmangataosenai]

I am glad the prosecutors took the case. Something like this (a rape that was several years ago with a celebrity) is always hard to win.

Like almost everyone else I do wish he was convicted. Not just because he deserves it, but because we have a rape problem in this country and I would hope that more high profile cases like this one could maybe help prevent some in the future (probably just wishful thinking on my part).

Didnt the DA run for office on a platform of prosecuting Cosby? Regardless of hia crimes I don't feel comfortable with politisizing an indictment in that manner.

 

[the_darkness]

He's a disgrace and should obviously be in jail but if anything, based on the evidence presented, it's actually more scary that there were jurors willing to convict.

 

[RinsFury]

I hope this digusting excuse for a human being spends these last years of his life in pure and utter misery as he grapples with the idea that his lifes work in television will be overshadowed by his real legacy, that of a serial rapist. Congrats on the freedom, scumbag.

 

[Aurean_Mentat]

Honestly, I wouldn't want to be on the jury in this case.

Something important to remember about rape kits is that they can't prove if rape happened. Rape kits prove whether sex happened. Then it's up to the evidence surrounding the event to determine whether or not it was rape.

And reading up on the details of the case, I'm not that surprised the case turned out as it did. The important legal question is 'did the evidence the prosecution bring to bear support the charges they were going for?'. In this case, the jury didn't agree unanimously, so it was a mistrial.

 

[Apathy]

That saved up Jello money putting in work

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

bizarre I wonder what the grounds for it being declared a mistrial were

Some asshole jurors didn't want to convict a black man and/or Bill Cosby.

 

[Cairax]

Some asshole jurors didn't want to convict a black man and/or Bill Cosby.

Or they listened to the judge's instructions and only deliberated the case based on the information presented in this specific trial.
When they could not come to a consensus of "reasonable doubt" based on what the judge allowed in the trial, the trial is over.

 

[The Llama]

Didnt the DA run for office on a platform of prosecuting Cosby? Regardless of hia crimes I don't feel comfortable with politisizing an indictment in that manner.

Yeah, he did. Probably why he won the election, tbh, as otherwise no one really would have cared (it's my home county...actually Bill Cosby lives about 3 minutes down the road from my parents lol). That said, the jury was from Allegheny County (basically Pittsburgh and it's suburbs) so they wouldn't have been influenced by that, at leaar.

 

[Cat Party]

Well, kudos to the jurors who thought he was guilty and wouldn't back down. Mistrial is better than not guilty.

 

[Giolon]

That's fucking scary. So you're saying if no one is around when a person dies, and a cop says that I'm the one who killed that person, with no other evidence showing that I was even in the area, that's enough to convict beyond the sheer subjectivity of "reasonable doubt"?

Yes. The job of the defense is to instill doubt in you about the testimony - "But what about X", or calling into question the reliability of the person giving the testimony.

That's why there is a jury of multiple people. It's a lot harder to convince 12 people of something than 1. If the testimony is inconsistent or otherwise suspect, you'd hope at least one person would pick up on that and bring up the issue to the other jurors.

In my experience, jurors do take their job seriously. There are legal repercussions if you don't. All of these people in here saying "those jurors should've just fallen in line to send a message" have it totally wrong about how the system is supposed to work. Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I voted to convict another human being of a crime that I wasn't certain they had committed, based on the evidence and defense presented to me in the courtroom.

The prosecution in this case says they're planning to go back for another trial. We'll see if they can successfully make the case the next time. Given that it's only testimonial evidence and the alleged crime is so old, they have an uphill battle.

 

[Permanently A]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsPLEz01Qg

What the FUCK

 

[Crimson_Echidna]

Yes. The job of the defense is to instill doubt in you about the testimony - "But what about X", or calling into question the reliability of the person giving the testimony.

That's why there is a jury of multiple people. It's a lot harder to convince 12 people of something than 1. If the testimony is inconsistent or otherwise suspect, you'd hope at least one person would pick up on that and bring up the issue to the other jurors.

In my experience, jurors do take their job seriously. There are legal repercussions if you don't. All of these people in here saying "those jurors should've just fallen in line to send a message" have it totally wrong about how the system is supposed to work. Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I voted to convict another human being of a crime that I wasn't certain they had committed, based on the evidence and defense presented to me in the courtroom.

The prosecution in this case says they're planning to go back for another trial. We'll see if they can successfully make the case the next time. Given that it's only testimonial evidence and the alleged crime is so old, they have an uphill battle.

Hell, there's a reason why it's rare for a jury to be composed of people with this type of sentiment as well. Jurors are screened by both Lawyers and Judges before being selected. So it's literally not as simple as "Well, we all know he's really guilty so let's just end this." I empathize with the sentiment and frustration, but realistically it'll never be as easy as that.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

2 Cosby holdouts prevented guilty verdict, juror says

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, a juror in the Bill Cosby sexual assault case said that after dozens of hours of grueling deliberations in a tiny room, 10 of the 12 jurors agreed he was guilty on two counts. On a third count, only one of the jurors believed he was guilty.

The final, intractable votes on the first of the three counts was 10 to two to find Cosby guilty of digitally penetrating accuser Andrea Constand without her consent, the juror said. On the second count, that she was unconscious or unaware during the incident, the juror said the vote was 11 to one to acquit. On the third count, that the alleged assault occurred after Cosby gave Constand drugs or intoxicants without her knowledge, substantially impairing her for the purpose of preventing her resistance, the jury was deadlocked at 10 to two, in favor of a guilty verdict, according to the juror.

On counts one and three, the two holdouts against finding Cosby guilty were ”not moving, no matter what," said the juror, who agreed to speak to ABC News only on the condition of anonymity.

Better a guilty man walks free than an innocent man behind bars. I expected this mistrial. The events happened years ago and there wasn't any proper evidence.

The jury can't convict based on "feelings." This is our system working.

Are you serious? Really going with that silly quote given the history of our system catastrophically failing, especially when it comes to black Americans and (for different reasons) women? People have absolutely been convicted and lawsuits have been lost on the "feelings" of a jury toward a defendant or at the very least been given harsher outcomes, be it the case itself or not liking the way the defendant looked presented themselves or jury members having some other issue with them and on the opposite end defendants have won for reasons not having to do with presented evidence or gotten off lighter. Juries aren't some infallible emotionless bots ruled by logic, they're flawed human beings and potential assholes with all kinds of potential hang-ups that the prosecution or defense failed to get dismissed. Of course that can potentially cause issues down the line that can overturn convictions but to say "this is our system working" doesn't mean it made the right choice even based on the evidence and not emotion.