Bill cosby guilty

[tehealadin]

You really can't see the problem with a lawyer or the justice system in general bending to the will of the Vox Populi?

Lawyers and the courts are supposed to ignore social pressures specifically to protect society from its own worst tendencies.

I don't think the importance of this can be stressed enough.

Yes, it does mean that when the system screws up, or in cut and dry cases with monsters, some actions/decisions/outcomes can stick in the throat, that same system makes it more difficult for oppressive regimes to come after innocent people. That is the whole point of trying to have a consistent system where everyone is equal (in theory at least) under the law and entitled to a fair trial. To protect my rights, I need to protect the rights of scumbags also.

Allowing for standards/rights to be applied based on personal preference/mob rule, it might be fine if the mob is on your side, or the personal preference matches your own, but you (obviously not you personally Mihalik) then can't complain when the wind changes and you or someone you like finds the machine running over them, in insisting on such subjective standards you hamstring yourself should such an event take place.

- - - Updated - - -

Was that the one about scalping?

Yes. Might have been an entirely different scenario, but the principle is the same. I can't be arsed going to find quotes, but he is gaslighting over it, as his posts were unambiguous. Many tried to point out the folly on insisting that legal==ethical, that one might end up looking foolish to insist on this, when they encounter a scenario where the action is something you really disagree with (e.g. this one), despite its legal nature, and that to then complain would look hollow. Many other reasons to take issue with some of the arguments he makes, but it starts from a flawed position when you insist legal==ethical.

[Elegiac]

To protect my rights, I need to protect the rights of scumbags also.

What about the rights of the people Bill Cosby raped.

[Mihalik]

You’re pretending I am stating an action to be taken. I am not. I am not arguing for mob rule. I can do an ethical analysis to say why that’s already unethical because society expects rules. If mob rule were true universally would mean it is ethical for a mob to kill someone for being gay which is a contradiction.

I never made that argument though.

Instead I stated how the actions of the lawyer can often work to facilitate unethical people to thrive which is unethical. That doesn’t say what the system should be or how to fix it.

It’s literally simply an observation

It is ethical for a lawyer the represent the best interests of his client, independently of the morality of his client's interests.

You're confusing ethics and morality here.

Is it immoral to evict Native Americans from their land to build a piece of shit pipeline? Yes. But is the lawyer representing the oil company being personally unethical when representing the oil company? No. He is not even being immoral, as both the moral and ethical role an attorney fills in the legal system we have created is simply to represent the interests of his client to the best of his abilities within the limits of the law.

The role attorneys fill in the legal system evolved as it has (essentially since the times of Ancient Rome) as the byproduct of the emergence of Legalism. Legalism in turn emerged from the recognition that morality can in fact be subjective thus we need a prescriptive code based on neutral scientific reasoning (these notions go back all the way into antiquity and first took form in a modern sense during the Roman era) to avoid having a complete mess of legal system.

Fact is there's absolutely nothing unethical from an attorney representing his client, no matter how despicable, as long as he fulfills 2 conditions, one being him doing the best he can on behalf of his client without any personal bias and the other being not breaking any laws in the process of representing his client.

If you're going to say - Look I think lawyers doing X is unethical, you have to provide some sort of reasoning to why exactly they are being unethical, in what sense, and thus also be able to say what could be done differently to be ethical.

"I don't like the outcome, thus unethical" is not an argument.

Again, the scenario with the Nativa Americans that you used, the outcome might have been per say immoral and a lot of people have been acting immorally, but the lawyer itself would have done nothing unethical or immoral....as long as he didn't break any laws in the process of representing their client.

Lawyers are in a sense, tools of their clients. A lawyer might have personal values in polar opposition to that of his clients, but he is still obligated to represent the interests of his client...and if a lawyer cannot do that...well he probably have chosen the wrong profession.

[Elegiac]

But is the lawyer representing the oil company being personally unethical when representing the oil company? No.

They are if the legal framework within which they are operating is one designed in part for the purpose of benefiting one of the parties over the other. And we have a legal framework that is both designed to benefit the wealthy and one which is hopelessly inadequate at delivering justice in cases of sex crimes.

So.... Ethically, it's very very grey. Not "being a cop" grey, but still.

[Specialka]

What about the rights of the people Bill Cosby raped.

We get it, you do not like state of right

[Mihalik]

They are if the legal framework within which they are operating is one designed in part for the purpose of benefiting one of the parties over the other. And we have a legal framework that is both designed to benefit the wealthy and one which is hopelessly inadequate at delivering justice in cases of sex crimes.

So.... Ethically, it's very very grey. Not "being a cop" grey, but still.

Yes, but in that context the issue is with the existing legal framework itself, not with the attorneys existing and fulfilling their functions within. So again, ethically per say...they are fine. The morality of the society within which they exist on the other hand, is questionable.

[Ripster42]

Really weird to see a bunch of people make it abundantly clear that they don't care about anyone's rights and that they only care about seeing this specific rapist in prison, as if there wasn't a justice system that has to be administered.

What about the rights of the people Bill Cosby raped.

As far as the victims' rights pertain to cosby's trials they're being respected. It doesn't sound like you know what rights victims have in the US. They're essentially entitled to being kept informed about the trial and restitution if the court assigns blame (the restitution can be pursued outside of the criminal arena in the civil arena). In this case, testimony given under a non-prosecution agreement was used to criminally prosecute the person who gave the testimony: The person was convicted unjustly as their 5th amendment rights (due process in conjunction with rights against self-incrimination) were violated to obtain that conviction. This doesn't set aside the civil decision. The victims who won their civil case due to the testimony still received their restitution. No victim has the right to imprison people who haven't been justly convicted. All of the victim's rights were maintained.

A reminder: cosby would have never been tried if not for the testimony. From the penn supreme court's decision:

“there was insufficient credible and admissible
evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident
could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

The admissible evidence was essentially one person's account of something that happened years prior. Cosby was forced to testify:

Seeking “some measure of justice” for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the
Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand,
thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty
of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
2

Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the
district attorney’s declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During
those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements.

His rights were absolutely violated: They forced him to testify, then used that testimony in a criminal prosecution against him.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

To recap: The victims' rights were maintained. The rapist's rights weren't.

Do people really not understand that no one has a specific right if that right can be violated at will by the branch of government that is supposed to be adjudicating what rights exist? The fact that injustice exists is not an excuse to violate people's rights yourself. Sounds like the members of the state supreme court took that message to heart. To wit:

The role attorneys fill in the legal system evolved as it has (essentially since the times of Ancient Rome) as the byproduct of the emergence of Legalism. Legalism in turn emerged from the recognition that morality can in fact be subjective thus we need a prescriptive code based on neutral scientific reasoning (these notions go back all the way into antiquity and first took form in a modern sense during the Roman era) to avoid having a complete mess of legal system.

Hammurabi's code was about a thousand years before rome was founded. The need for protections from persecution via the gov'ts judicial system was promulgated from some of the first laws written (that we have a record of) not allowing any, and the recognition that horror and great injustice lies down that road. That's the immorality (or, 'mess of a legal system' as you put it) that lawyers are trying to avoid by maintaining and following procedures for 'due process' and 'zealous representation': Capricious convictions of people by an immoral gov't. We, as a society, have judged that it's morally better to free a guilty man than imprison an innocent, while also judging the even application of law to be a moral good.

[Elegiac]

Really weird to see a bunch of people make it abundantly clear that they don't care about anyone's rights and that they only care about seeing this specific rapist in prison, as if there wasn't a justice system that has to be administered.

No, more an observation that the existing system is incapable of delivering justice in the case of sex crimes or crimes involving a wealthy party with this being another point on the roster.

We get why societies make laws. The question is whether this society's laws are actually worth a shit insofar as meeting that goal.

[Ursus]

I don't know why, but the past couple days I've had a huge craving for some Jello pudding.

[Ripster42]

No, more an observation that the existing system is incapable of delivering justice in the case of sex crimes or crimes involving a wealthy party with this being another point on the roster.

We get why societies make laws. The question is whether this society's laws are actually worth a shit insofar as meeting that goal.

The post was about why lawyers and judges act how they do within the confines of the law: without the people assigned to enforce laws acting in accordance with those laws, there isn't even the possibility of justice. The judicial system becomes a tool of oppression worse than the system we have now. All of recorded history gives example of how unjust the capricious application of law can be. A lot of the complaints people have now with our justice system are about the capricious application of law (DAs declining to prosecute certain suspects because of the resources it would take/influence). The answer to that problem isn't to make the problem worse by preventing people from getting due process and denying the rights of people not to self incriminate, which would make it easier to convict people without an actual basis for that conviction.

To sum: the post was not about why societies make laws in general, but why societies make laws that protect citizens from their judicial system and entrust lawyers and judges to protect citizens against misuse of that judicial system. The position you've staked out says you care more about imprisoning a guilty person than assuring you don't imprison an innocent one:

Really weird to see a bunch of people make it abundantly clear that they don't care about anyone's rights and that they only care about seeing this specific rapist in prison, as if there wasn't a justice system that has to be administered.

Our judicial system already imprisons enough innocent people (and executes!), you want to make that problem worse by eroding the rights of accused people.

[Jotaux]

No, more an observation that the existing system is incapable of delivering justice in the case of sex crimes or crimes involving a wealthy party with this being another point on the roster.

We get why societies make laws. The question is whether this society's laws are actually worth a shit insofar as meeting that goal.

What do you suggest be changed?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Really weird to see a bunch of people make it abundantly clear that they don't care about anyone's rights and that they only care about seeing this specific rapist in prison, as if there wasn't a justice system that has to be administered.



As far as the victims' rights pertain to cosby's trials they're being respected. It doesn't sound like you know what rights victims have in the US. They're essentially entitled to being kept informed about the trial and restitution if the court assigns blame (the restitution can be pursued outside of the criminal arena in the civil arena). In this case, testimony given under a non-prosecution agreement was used to criminally prosecute the person who gave the testimony: The person was convicted unjustly as their 5th amendment rights (due process in conjunction with rights against self-incrimination) were violated to obtain that conviction. This doesn't set aside the civil decision. The victims who won their civil case due to the testimony still received their restitution. No victim has the right to imprison people who haven't been justly convicted. All of the victim's rights were maintained.

A reminder: cosby would have never been tried if not for the testimony. From the penn supreme court's decision:

The admissible evidence was essentially one person's account of something that happened years prior. Cosby was forced to testify:

His rights were absolutely violated: They forced him to testify, then used that testimony in a criminal prosecution against him.



To recap: The victims' rights were maintained. The rapist's rights weren't.

Do people really not understand that no one has a specific right if that right can be violated at will by the branch of government that is supposed to be adjudicating what rights exist? The fact that injustice exists is not an excuse to violate people's rights yourself. Sounds like the members of the state supreme court took that message to heart. To wit:



Hammurabi's code was about a thousand years before rome was founded. The need for protections from persecution via the gov'ts judicial system was promulgated from some of the first laws written (that we have a record of) not allowing any, and the recognition that horror and great injustice lies down that road. That's the immorality (or, 'mess of a legal system' as you put it) that lawyers are trying to avoid by maintaining and following procedures for 'due process' and 'zealous representation': Capricious convictions of people by an immoral gov't. We, as a society, have judged that it's morally better to free a guilty man than imprison an innocent, while also judging the even application of law to be a moral good.

There is the law but this isn’t justice. And at this point none should ever care about the law. When these are the results.

If laws don’t work for all equally and then it isn’t blind and if those who serve it can’t actually hear the victims over the pocket books of the rich then there is no justice.

[Ripster42]

There is the law but this isn’t justice. And at this point none should ever care about the law. When these are the results.

If laws don’t work for all equally and then it isn’t blind and if those who serve it can’t actually hear the victims over the pocket books of the rich then there is no justice.

This isn't "over the pocket book of the rich." It's "the state violated a person's right of due process and forced testimony."

Our judicial system already imprisons enough innocent people (and executes!), you want to make that problem worse by eroding the rights of accused people.

So yeah, the first part of what you quoted definitely applies to you. You don't give a shit about people's rights.

[PACOX]

I'm going to have to walk back a comment I made that he would still face social repercussions. In less than a week he is talking about going on tour and all kind of stuff. His shows are starting to pop back up on TV. Less than a week an you have people forgetting that he didn't get out because he was innocent, but on a technicality to protect the rights of actuate innocent people. He does not appear to see the wrong in his actions.

Shameless.

[tehealadin]

I'm going to have to walk back a comment I made that he would still face social repercussions. In less than a week he is talking about going on tour and all kind of stuff. His shows are starting to pop back up on TV. Less than a week an you have people forgetting that he didn't get out because he was innocent, but on a technicality to protect the rights of actuate innocent people. He does not appear to see the wrong in his actions.

Shameless.

Some of the stories I have heard about him and his ego, he seems like an extremely entitled man. I suppose any rapist is entitled tbf. It is a mindset I will never understand. I only hope he is too old and feeble to be able to harm anyone now he is out.

[PACOX]

Some of the stories I have heard about him and his ego, he seems like an extremely entitled man. I suppose any rapist is entitled tbf. It is a mindset I will never understand. I only hope he is too old and feeble to be able to harm anyone now he is out.

His ego has been an issue for awhile but people sort of ignored, said critics were being too harsh. His standing with a lot black, before his trial, was complicated. Like an uncle you respect for things they did in the past or some wisdom they drop here and there, but most of the stuff if awful and merely tolerated as long as you know you only have to seem him at family gatherings.

He seems like he is going to attmept a 'kiss my ass' tour.

[tehealadin]

His ego has been an issue for awhile but people sort of ignored, said critics were being too harsh. His standing with a lot black, before his trial, was complicated. Like an uncle you respect for things they did in the past or some wisdom they drop here and there, but most of the stuff if awful and merely tolerated as long as you know you only have to seem him at family gatherings.

He seems like he is going to attmept a 'kiss my ass' tour.

I liked Dave Chappelle talking about him, hits home why many in the black community feel conflicted, the man did a lot of good for the black community. I like the Stannis mantra when it comes to people- the good deeds cannot wash away the bad, nor the bad the good, so he might be a monster but that doesn't wash away the good work he has done in the past.

Yea, I was worried he would try to do a "kiss my ass" tour, certainly wouldn't be something I would be going out to see.

[Jotaux]

It's definitely the correct court ruling but you have to wonder why he was offered this deal in the first place. It was not even a criminal case!

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I liked Dave Chappelle talking about him, hits home why many in the black community feel conflicted, the man did a lot of good for the black community. I like the Stannis mantra when it comes to people- the good deeds cannot wash away the bad, nor the bad the good, so he might be a monster but that doesn't wash away the good work he has done in the past.

Yea, I was worried he would try to do a "kiss my ass" tour, certainly wouldn't be something I would be going out to see.

I mean bad people often do good things as well. Napoleon gave us a reworked legal code that simplied a lot of things and is still used in a lot of places around the world. Unfortunately he also started like 4-5 major wars which lead to thousands of deaths. Hitler was pretty central in pulling the world out of a global economic depression and rebuilt a nation before the whole war that killed millions and extermination camps things. We remember these people for the really bad things they did. We really didn't let them off the hook because we could find some examples of helpful moments.

Bill Cosby while not on the scale of these terrible people mentionable is really no different. Yeah he made people laugh. He entertained a lot of people. He no doubt lead the black community in many things and no doubt funded many great projects that helped the black community. But at the end of the day he was a rapist. Not just a once when he and her were a little drunk in college and the details are a bit blurry (even though it's terrible as well). But a true predator that actively hunted his prey and drugged them repeatedly. This is a man that probably could have had sex with at least some if not most of these women anyway if he had just gone about it the normal way. Rich, famous, the reason most of them were around him in the first place situation. But he didn't do that. The man probably got a sick thrill from doing it and enjoyed raping women. He is an absolutely terrible person in every way. Guilty as fuck. But he had a good lawyer so he gets to go free. At least at this point no one will probably be exposing themselves to him to be drugged to be raped and the guy is so old its probably not working so well anymore anyway, but.. a really predator was put back on the streets because of a technical loophole that only someone with damn near unlimited funding could pull off.

So sure, I will say he did some good things. But I will only remember him for one thing. Being a rapist with a good lawyer. That's it. I just hope no one is harmed because of it. At least beyond the mental pain most these women probably feel because of him walking free today.

[tehealadin]

So sure, I will say he did some good things. But I will only remember him for one thing. Being a rapist with a good lawyer. That's it. I just hope no one is harmed because of it. At least beyond the mental pain most these women probably feel because of him walking free today.

Oh I am the same, for me he is a rapist first and foremost.