[Rancid]

If the justice system is to be fair, this is what must happen. Doesn't matter how guilty someone is, if the system fucked up and did something it wasn't supposed to, then you have to be fair. YOu cannot make exceptions. This erodes the system as a whole.

Letting out a scum bag rapist is the correct result here.

[Rugoz]

Sure, but that is reason he was realised. In theory there should never have been a trial to begin with so of course he can't be retrialed now.

That presumes the other evidence doesn't justify a trial.

[B0ycey]

That presumes the other evidence doesn't justify a trial.

I believe that he can't be trailed again regardless on this specific case due to a non prosecution clause. I think the initial plan was to sue which is why he admitted to rape and drugging.

[Godstud]

@Rancid What it means isn't justice to the victims, only the victimizer. That's an already failed justice system.

The point is not to make it "fair" to the point where confessed criminals walk away without paying for their crimes.

[ingliz]

justice

It will be a justice of sorts soon enough.

In most civil cases, the burden of persuasion that applies is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred.

The victims can sue in civil court, and seeing as he has publically admitted similar offenses, they will bankrupt him.

[Skynet]

There are always two justice systems those for rich and those for commons.

[Potemkin]

There are always two justice systems those for rich and those for commons.

In practice there is, but this case is a poor example of that. Cosby was (eventually) brought to trial, and was convicted and sent to prison. There was a fuck-up by a previous prosecutor, though, which meant that the trial should never have legally gone ahead. And even now that he's been released, he can still be sued by his victims, who will likely be able to bankrupt him. For further details, see the OJ Simpson case.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that victims of Bill Cosby will be able to sue and bankrupt him. Still, the wealthy get away with a lot more because they have access to good lawyers to defend them and find loopholes in the law to get away with things that common folks wouldn't able to get away with. Life isn't fair, is it? But perhaps the ultimate truth of the matter, though we should try to make things as just as reasonably possible, life will never be fair regardless of effort to make it fair.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that victims of Bill Cosby will be able to sue and bankrupt him. Still, the wealthy get away with a lot more because they have access to good lawyers to defend them and find loopholes in the law to get away with things that common folks wouldn't able to get away with. Life isn't fair, is it?

No it's not. That will only come once communism has finally been achieved.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

You will never be able to make life fair even with the best of efforts. All you can do is to make it as fair as reasonably possible but life will remain unfair even then. It's the nature of the beast.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

You will never be able to make life fair even with the best of efforts. All you can do is to make it as fair as reasonably possible but life will remain unfair even then. It's the nature of the beast.

It also depends what you mean by "fair". From one point of view, the survival of the fittest is the most perfectly fair system imaginable. It is, after all, more or less how nature arranges things. After all, why should the weak survive to propagate their defective genes into the next generation? Likewise, to a capitalist the capitalist system is the fairest system they can imagine. After all, why should the poor survive to propagate their defective genes into the next generation?

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

I think things are more complex than that. I believe the weak and the vulnerable should be protected by society. Morally, it's not right to just toss aside the weak and the vulnerable or victims of crime for example. That being said, I also think that capitalism and private ownership provides some incentive for people to work. However, capitalism needs to be regulated to the benefit of society. If left to it's own devices without proper government regulation, capitalism can be destructive due to it's Darwinian nature.

Plus, if capitalism is left to it's own devices without proper government regulation and allowing workers a voice in the work place, then workers are essentially treated as replaceable spare parts and are ruthlessly exploited to the extreme and detriment of the well being of the working class and ultimately society. Hence, why I support properly regulated capitalism (which government plays the role as the regulator, a capitalism with rules and a capitalism that has a responsibility to society and to the globe) while on the same token permitting workers to have a real voice in the workplace through union representation.

Unions are not perfect either but, it's probably as reasonably close to fair as you can get without destroying the economy or the economic well being of society. The economic well being of society is also important too and capitalism plays an important role in assuring the economic well being of society. But again, capitalism should not be left to it's own devices and needs government regulation while permitting a real voice for workers in the work place.

Sometimes international regulation of capitalism is important too in that governments must work to ensure corporations pay their taxes to the societies they operate in and benefit from. This is just one example in international cooperation in regards to the proper regulation of capitalism on a more global scale. This helps to ensure the well being of the people of the planet while also not destroying the economic well being of the various societies on the planet. So, international cooperation between governments is essiential in regulating capitalism and protecting the planet from the worst impulses of capitalism, as well as protecting the health of various societies around the world and the economic well being of various societies around the globe.

[Rugoz]

I believe that he can't be trailed again regardless on this specific case due to a non prosecution clause. I think the initial plan was to sue which is why he admitted to rape and drugging.

That's what the judge decided. Legally it was only necessary to exclude the testimony from a third trial.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

Not to get too far off topic of this thread but in the absence of international cooperation to properly regulate capitalism, ensure corporations pay their taxes to the societies they benefit from while doing business around the globe and protect the well being and economic well being of global societies; the consequences are the rise of populist authoritarian figures in politics around the globe which are dangerous. We have seen some of this happen already in various parts of the globe. Plus climate change is a very real and pressing problem that requires international cooperation to combat.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

Not to get too far off topic of this thread but in the absence of international cooperation to properly regulate capitalism, ensure corporations pay their taxes to the societies they benefit from while doing business around the globe and protect the well being and economic well being of global societies; the consequences are the rise of populist authoritarian figures in politics around the globe which are dangerous. We have seen some of this happen already in various parts of the globe. Plus climate change is a very real and pressing problem.

This is just another way of saying that capitalism cannot solve its own internal contradictions.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

Well no economic system is perfect hence why there is a need for government regulation of capitalism and international cooperation in regulating capitalism as well. But communism, as fair as it tries to be, has not lived up to it's promise to assure the economic well being of societies. The economic well being of societies is important too. In addition, communists, when they come to power, establish authoritarian regimes that are not good for the health of the society.

[Rancid]

In practice there is, but this case is a poor example of that. Cosby was (eventually) brought to trial, and was convicted and sent to prison. There was a fuck-up by a previous prosecutor, though, which meant that the trial should never have legally gone ahead. And even now that he's been released, he can still be sued by his victims, who will likely be able to bankrupt him. For further details, see the OJ Simpson case.

Exactly.

As a general comment. To say that the system is "broken" because of what has happened here is rooted in ignorance of the system. How can you call something broken when you don't understand how it works.

This case for which he spent 3 years in prison, should have never happened in the first place. That is the reason he was released. If the system is broken, it actually failed Cosby, not his victims. He served a prison term that was never supposed to happen in the first place. Regardless of how despicable he is. Which of course sounds horrible, but in order for a system to be fair, it must also be fair to scum bags like Cosby.

I would argue, it is more important for a justice system to treat the accused fairly, than it is to seek justice for victim of crime. Ideally, both should be achieved in equal amounts, but if it's going to be lop sided, I'd rather the benefit of doubt be given to the accused (no matter what the crime is).

We have to keep in mind, that a violation of anyone's right (even a scumbag), is a violation of our own rights. We should never cheer on when a scum bag piece of shit gets his/her rights violated. Never. If you do, you are saying it's ok for the government to overstep its bounds, to compromise its founding principles. One day, you might be the accused (rightfully, or wrongfully). Do you want the system to be based in emotional street justice or actual fairness? Keep that in mind.

[Rugoz]

This case for which he spent 3 years in prison, should have never happened in the first place.

Says who? A former prosecutor promised not to charge Cosby in order to get a testimony. It is not obvious to me that a court must actually uphold such an informal deal, it could just as well declare it null and void and throw out the testimony.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

You will never be able to make life fair even with the best of efforts. All you can do is to make it as fair as reasonably possible but life will remain unfair even then. It's the nature of the beast.

The Right Honourable Alan B'stard, MP, explains how to eradicate poverty in the fairest way possible....

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

There will always be rich and poor and there will always be poverty. The important thing is finding ways to make it more possible that if you are born poor, you can die middle class or wealthy. Socioeconomic mobility is a big problem here in the U.S. Many of my school friends, now that I am older and wiser, I can see many of them grew up in poverty. However, many of them were very smart and talented. When you are in middle and high school, you don't think in terms of "rich and poor" nor do you fully understand the concept of poverty because you are still a child.

I saw many of my old school friends yesterday when I attended a funeral for one of their mothers. Poverty is rough and hard and you can see it's consequences on those who have lived in poverty and continue to live in poverty.

Personally, I grew up middle class (and better off than most of my fellow classmates in high school). One of the myths about U.S. military recruitment is the notion of a "poverty draft." Data I have read suggests that most people (though not necessarily all) who serve in the U.S. military are from the middle class and not from the poor or wealthy of society here in the U.S. I have seen some poor serving too but I haven't seen any affluent members of society serving to the best of my knowledge with the exception of Pat Tillman and a few NFL football players and many of these folks came from poverty though were paid well while playing professional football.