fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3116 ]

[ SECRET POST #3116 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3116 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Fire Emblem: Fates]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Rebecca Black, Friday]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 027 secrets from Secret Submission Post #445.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It still sucks that she needed the evidence pushed into her face to finally realize the truth. Like, 30-40 women talking about their rapes and harassment wasn't good enough?

All she did, and rightly so, was say that in this country we have due process, and that people are innocent until they're proven guilty in a court of law and not the court of public opinion.

I think that's true in a legal sense, and I sympathize with the concept that we should try to avoid rushing to judgment.

At the same time, I think we can use our own judgment to reach conclusions. And the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle not a moral one. And in a case like this where there's an enormous preponderance of evidence, I don't really think there's any problem with reaching a measured conclusion.

Except most of us aren't in the public eye like she is.

If I say "yeah ____ is probably a rapist" TMZ doesn't pick it up, it doesn't become a major news story, and I don't have paparazzi screaming it in my face. If I somehow prove to be wrong, I'm not going to be vilified in the media or have my career damaged.

So yeah I think she had every right to be cagey.

Edited 2015-07-16 23:53 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I think it's alright if she wants to be cagy or decline to comment, I'm not arguing against that, I'm just saying it's also alright if she wants to come to a conclusion, if you see what I mean.

This!

It doesn't suck that a person needed evidence to come to a decision.

Jesus fucking Christ that's the way it's supposed to work. So we aren't fucking hanging people for things they didn't do, because all the townspeople pre-decided they were guilty without evidence.

We can't all look at each other, nod, and go "well that other guy said he was guilty" and then decide that's enough. That's chaos, and it's how innocent people get hurt.

Being unbiased, being patient, waiting for the facts to come in. That is how you SHOULD be. Not a fucking lynch mob.

It's innocent until proven guilty for a damn good reason. That shouldn't be a well-when-we-feel-like-it aspect of the justice system.

Rape is bad, punishing without evidence is also bad.

Well two points: one, the court of public opinion is not actually part of the legal system, and these principles maybe don't function quite the same way in these different spheres.

Two, I think there's a strong argument to be made that there was more than enough evidence here before Goldberg had made her statement.

While the court of public opinion isn't the legal system, it has the potential to ruin a person's life. I don't think it's bad to ask that people wait for evidence before deciding someone's guilty of something, if it'll mean someone who winds up being innocent doesn't get painted with a scarlet letter.

But - again - there is a pretty substantial body of evidence in this case.

NA

But the reason we have a legal system is so that both sides can present their evidence.

That body of evidence, while compelling, was only complied on the "He is guilty" side. However overwhelming that may be there is always the possibility of another shoe dropping, and a responsible person should wait for trial before deciding they have all the evidence they need to make a decision.

Look at it this way, if you knew nothing about the case, and you were watching doctored footage of a trial, showing only the defence side, you would then have a "substantial body of evidence" wouldn't you? would you declare him innocent?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-17 06:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-17 06:53 (UTC) - Expand

And I think once Cosby himself, in a legal proceding, under oath admitted to buying drugs to drug women into sex, that it was pretty much game over on waiting for any type of evidence before saying he's guilty.

Cosby's admission is evidence, and that is what a lot of people were waiting for. Real evidence. The accusations are just accusations and not evidence in themselves. Accusation is not evidence, suspicion is not proof, and court of public opinion or no, I will not treat them as such.

So, you take the word of ONE man over the word of 30-40 women?

Well aren't you awful.

Your adorably fascist contempt for due process aside, there WASN"T the word of 30-40 women until quite recently. Sometimes people change their opinion as more information comes in. But I suppose you have contempt for that as well.

Can you get it through your skull that no one here is talking about any process that would send Cosby to jail or punish him in any way?

We are talking about the standards for a reasonable person to conclude that Cosby is a rapist - not the standards to convict and punish him for rape.

DA

The public/Internet lynching seems to be viewed as A-OK, however. I think that's what AYRT is saying is wrong, and I kind of agree.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-17 01:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-17 06:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-17 06:41 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-17 07:01 (UTC) - Expand

NA

I'm reminded of the Duke Lacrosse Team case. The standards for a reasonable person to conclude they were guilty were met. Lives were ruined.

Standards are higher in the real courts for a reason. Then need to be higher in the court of public opinion too because the damage for a wrong decision in either direction are just as devastating.

I believe based on the evidence I have he is guilty, but I can never be sure, when the people presenting the evidence are the media and not someone with a legal obligation to present things correctly to a set standard like a lawyer, that I have all of the evidence in context.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-17 06:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-17 07:03 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-17 07:06 (UTC) - Expand

Quite recently?
Women have been talking about their abuse by Cosby since the beginning of the year, genius.
Ugh, I hope none of your friends or family are rape victims. I'd hate to see how you react if they ever opened up to someone like you.

DA. Cosby raping women has actually been an "open secret" in Hollywood for years. It's just that until quite recently, none of it was taken seriously by the public.

There was a joke on 30 rock about it years ago, and I even remember hearing rumors years before 30 rock. For whatever reason though this stuff used to be able to be swept under the rug for a disturbing amount of time.

Being unbiased, being patient, waiting for the facts to come in. That is how you SHOULD be. Not a fucking lynch mob.

Welcome to the Internet. Are you new?

In a court of law, 40+ witnesses all telling the same story IS evidence. It's not DNA or go home. 40+ witnesses is a homerun for the prosecution. She's not standing up for the rights of the accused, she's reinforcing rape culture.

Yes, it is evidence. No it is not a home run. Because we have this thing called "the defence".

The court of public opinion does not work on the adversarial system. It doesn't even really work on a inquisitorial system, because it has not obligation to meet any standards at all.

As individuals, we have the obligation to use our best judgment and reason to evaluate the situation.

And if my best judgment and reason tells me that Bill Cosby is almost certainly a rapist, I'm going to think that whether or not there's a statute of limitations that prevents him from being charged in a court of law.

I think any other position is, frankly, fucking ridiculous.

Absolutely!

And if your best judgement tells you you need more? You need to know all the proof was thoroughly resented, and thoroughly questioned, scrutinized and he had his best possible chance to defend himself before you can say with certainty one way or the other. This system you (and I) hold to so dearly should allow you to do that without the MASSIVE amount of shit that is being dumped on the woman above.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only