Exodus Strength

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/lo ... d/2865246/

Question,

Are we allowed both to think he's guilty and also that this was the correct decision for it's larger implications to criminal justice and the rights of defendants in general?

Or is that too much nuance today's world?

mikeylikey wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:09 pm Are we allowed both to think he's guilty and also that this was the correct decision for it's larger implications to criminal justice and the rights of defendants in general?

This person seems to think so,

Phylicia Rashad, who starred alongside the actor in “The Cosby Show” in the 80s and 90s, expressed joy at his release.
“FINALLY!!!! A terrible wrong is being righted- a miscarriage of justice is corrected!” she tweeted.

yay!! we freed the rapist.

mbasic wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:39 pm

mikeylikey wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:09 pm Are we allowed both to think he's guilty and also that this was the correct decision for it's larger implications to criminal justice and the rights of defendants in general?

This person seems to think so,

Phylicia Rashad, who starred alongside the actor in “The Cosby Show” in the 80s and 90s, expressed joy at his release.
“FINALLY!!!! A terrible wrong is being righted- a miscarriage of justice is corrected!” she tweeted.

yay!! we freed the rapist.

Are you sure you know what "both" means?

Correct legal decision. Of course prosecutor decisions must be binding. Unfortunate Cosby is the beneficiary of the decision. It should be noted that the set of legal facts surrounding the Cosby case are unique.

I also think the original prosecutor is being unfairly treated. The original prosecutor declared insufficient evidence to charge Cosby. And pointedly communicated to Cosby's attorneys that because no charges would be brought Cosby could not plead the 5th in the civil case. It was the original prosecutor's judgement that the civil case, with the lower burden of proof AND Cosby's damning testimony, was the only way for the victim to get any justice. Agree or disagree with that decision, fine. But to cast that decision as some underhanded deal or protecting a sexual predator is wrong.

This requires far too much nuance and actual knowledge of the law to have a productive discussion with #metoo.

Yes both.

Its not a big deal because he's not a threat to society anylonger (maybe).

IDK, can the victims come after him now for Wrongful Raping or whatever.

mbasic wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:31 pmIDK, can the victims come after him now for Wrongful Raping or whatever.

Statute of limitations

aurelius wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:53 pm

mbasic wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:31 pmIDK, can the victims come after him now for Wrongful Raping or whatever.

Statute of limitations

then its fine.

he gets his mulligan.

if anything, I guess one could argue he wasn't supposed to be imprisoned in the first place, and now he's entitled to some kind of settlement.

mbasic wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:44 amif anything, I guess one could argue he wasn't supposed to be imprisoned in the first place, and now he's entitled to some kind of settlement.

Nah. Qualified Immunity.