View Poll Results: What will the verdict be in the Cosby sexual assault trial?
Guilty 20 21.05%
Not guilty 12 12.63%
Hung jury 54 56.84%
Pie 9 9.47%
Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-19-2017, 08:17 PM
madsircool madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
I had to read this 3 times to figure out your first few sentences. I presume you mean we don't allow victims of other crimes that the defendant has allegedly committed to testify. Since we pretty much always allow the victim of the specific criminal act the defendant is currently being prosecuted for to testify. Except for murder trials.
It was clear. BigT wants to allow all possible victims to testify whether there is any evidence they were victims or not. He thinks this will overcome any lack of actual physical evidence. Its more important to put away 100 accused rapists than allow 1 actual rapist to go free.
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 06-19-2017, 08:43 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Even if we take it as true that the case for this particular situation is weak, we still have a bunch of other women who can verify this pattern. This should be admissible evidence, as it is why most people argue there is no reasonable doubt. Even if you can't convince the jury of a particular rape, it should be enough to establish that he rapes.
(Emphasis added)

And "establishing that he rapes" gets us...? The statute penalizes the criminal conduct of raping specific persons at specific times and places. Establishing that a whole bunch of people report a pattern of rape in and of itself carries a penalty of absolutely nothing, we still need to prove this case.

Because of what's involved in the Cosby cases, the defense has the advantage in that due to the known weaknesses of witness testimony they can go after the credibility of the pattern-establishing testimony and reasonable doubt.
  #53  
Old 06-19-2017, 11:49 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewder View Post
I must say I don't find the "he was accused by a lot of people" thing to be terribly persuasive.
If your neighbor had been accused of rape by over 40 people, would you be happy knowing your wife was at their house? At a certain point, it's really hard to write these things off as coincidence. Particularly when many of the accusations are past the statutes of limitation, so the victims will never see any justice or restitution. What's the motivation to lie about being raped by a celebrity? Are these women disturbingly into death threats?

Quote:
Indeed I find it intellectually lazy and think that for it to have any meaning some evidence beyond simple accusations must be presented.
Well, how about Cosby's admission that he gives women quaaludes illegally? How about his admission that his view on consent is not exactly affirmative?
"I donít hear her say anything,Ē you say during the deposition, describing your encounter with the plaintiff. ďI donít feel her say anything. And so I continue, and I go into that area between permission and rejection. I am not stopped."
  #54  
Old 06-20-2017, 02:35 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Does anyone know why more witnesses weren't brought in to testify about the many other claims? Were they unavailable/unwilling to testify? Was it a legal matter about the narrow definition of a pattern? Did the prosecution do it's best here?
The legal rule is: other bad acts are inadmissible against the defendant in order to prove that the defendant acted the same way in the issue at trial.

However, they are admissible for other reasons. Prior convictions can be used to impeach the credibility of a defendant who testifies. Prior bad acts can be used to prove absence of mistake, or to show a common plan, scheme, or motive. But this cannot be the sort of general similarities that similar crimes will have. In general, the sorts of similarities here are not the kind of "signature" specifics that the law permits. (Back in the day, almost any sex crime could be used to show propensity to commit any other sex crime, because they all showed the defendant's "lustful disposition." This is no longer the case. I assume this is the regime BigT advocates.)
  #55  
Old 06-20-2017, 03:25 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,574
Yeah, that's kind of the shit thing about all of this. As horrible as the current system is at dealing with rape cases, it's really hard to imagine substantial changes that would make things better for the victim without being brutally, horrendously injust. :/
  #56  
Old 06-20-2017, 08:43 AM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The legal rule is: other bad acts are inadmissible against the defendant in order to prove that the defendant acted the same way in the issue at trial.

However, they are admissible for other reasons. Prior convictions can be used to impeach the credibility of a defendant who testifies. Prior bad acts can be used to prove absence of mistake, or to show a common plan, scheme, or motive. But this cannot be the sort of general similarities that similar crimes will have. In general, the sorts of similarities here are not the kind of "signature" specifics that the law permits. (Back in the day, almost any sex crime could be used to show propensity to commit any other sex crime, because they all showed the defendant's "lustful disposition." This is no longer the case. I assume this is the regime BigT advocates.)
Bricker given that we know that most rapists have more than one victim, if you've been accused of rape by multiple other people that actually does raise the prior probability that you're a rapist in *this specific case* as well.

I'm not a lawyer so not necessarily advocating that legal standards of evidence and statistical standards of evidence are the same thing, but it's not entirely fallacious to use previous sex crimes as evidence that this one happened as well.
  #57  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:17 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector_St_Clare View Post
Bricker given that we know that most rapists have more than one victim, if you've been accused of rape by multiple other people that actually does raise the prior probability that you're a rapist in *this specific case* as well.

I'm not a lawyer so not necessarily advocating that legal standards of evidence and statistical standards of evidence are the same thing, but it's not entirely fallacious to use previous sex crimes as evidence that this one happened as well.
But, then, what happens when a guy is on trial for rape and says, hey, I've got an expert here who says most rapists have more than one victim -- you know, the kind of guy who's been accused of rape by multiple other people, right? You sentenced a guy like that just yesterday, using that exact reasoning? Yeah, well, I've never been found guilty, before; I've never even been accused of rape before. So, full marks for breaking out an absence-of-evidence-ain't-evidence-of-absence argument; but count *something* in my favor if you counted some against him, huh?
  #58  
Old 06-20-2017, 02:04 PM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But, then, what happens when a guy is on trial for rape and says, hey, I've got an expert here who says most rapists have more than one victim -- you know, the kind of guy who's been accused of rape by multiple other people, right? You sentenced a guy like that just yesterday, using that exact reasoning? Yeah, well, I've never been found guilty, before; I've never even been accused of rape before. So, full marks for breaking out an absence-of-evidence-ain't-evidence-of-absence argument; but count *something* in my favor if you counted some against him, huh?
I explicitly said "not necessarily advocating that legal and statistical evidence should be the same thing," so I'm not making legal recommendations here.

That being said, the fact that someone has not been accused of rape before is weak evidence that he's slightly less likely to have committed this particular rape. It can of course be overridden by many other sorts of evidence, like if the victim offers a convincing story, if there's physical evidence etc..
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017