View Full Version : How long do we hold people responsible for sins of the past?
This thing with Kavanaugh has got me to thinking. How many of us would "pass" if we had done something offensive in our teens? I don't want to see Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court......but maybe not because of what he did in high school. It got me to thinking.........how long do we hold people responsible and punish them for things done long ago, when it doesn't seem to be anything they continued to do, and have even done very good things since then?
They're still sentencing people for WWII war crimes.
I never attempted to sexually or physically assault, rob, or commit any other felony at any age. (And apparently, he is implicated in many such "boys will be boys" assaults.) All in a day's play for the smirking preppie.
He's also perjured himself on several occasions, apparently.
To me, the crux of the issue here isn't what K may or may not have done in HS, but that he's very likely lying about it now. It's something any teenage boy might do if drunk enough (and definitely something a lot of the jock/frat boy types I knew in HS and college might have done, drunk or not). His accuser is credible, but K's response hasn't been, well, maybe things got out of hand, maybe she misunderstood, it was just horseplay, etc. etc., it has been categorical denial. Same thing with this new accusation that has just surfaced--unqualified denial, the Trump way.
I don't like to traffic in stereotypes, but in this case I'm willing to make an exception. From all I can gather K fits the privileged frat boy profile perfectly, and like I say, I knew plenty of guys like that. K's response of flat denial to the accusations means somebody's lying, which means you have to choose who to believe, and I believe her.
Teacher Terry
9-24-18, 12:03pm
Cosby is likely going to prison for crimes he committed 35 years ago. One of the Kennedy’s went to prison decades after he killed a girl in high school. None of my kids commitedva crime against women as teens. Basic decency.
ApatheticNoMore
9-24-18, 12:07pm
I absolutely think people should be forgiven at a certain point and the past let go. Ha, sometimes this is after serving a sentence but no noone should be held responsible forever. It's cruel and unusual.
It's like the Morgan Freeman character in the shawshank redemption, where he says something like: I don't even remember the young man who did that. It really is like this in real life sometimes where one's personality has so changed that they aren't the same person who did that once (although one first has to admit to the simple facts of having done what they did if they did it, even if the reasons are long forgotten. If they were too drug addled to even remember I don't know what to say). Even murderers should be forgiven at a certain point? Well yes, at a certain point IF it is likely they are no longer a danger to society (and I realize this gets into major gray areas of how to determine this). But that's the ultimate crime, everything else is less extreme.
However Kavanaugh, ugh I don't care. I mean ordinary people already are haunted by their pasts forever, ordinary people struggling through life, and at that point I see little reason to sympathize with the powerful. Protection under the law and a fair trail? Sure, of course everyone should have this though they don't, but that applies to trials and it's NOT a trail, it's a job interview for supreme court justice. And Kavanaugh is surprised noone owe him a job! I'm more concerned with ordinary people who may have did something less than ideal once and have their economic and other futures ruined by it than with him. In fact is he going to make the system any more humane? Uh I doubt that is his viewpoint, so he's also a hypocrite then, probably having learned nothing and repented nothing.
I think many of us have done foolish things in our youth but we are not nominated for the Supreme Court. He should be held to a higher standard. And this crap of a lifetime appointment needs to be over..........
Good post ApatheticNoMore. I wish I could write my ideas better. I sure wish we could get the truth all the time.
And I totally agree Tenngal........it seems ridiculous to have a lifetime appointment.
I know it's probably easier for someone who wasn't sexually assaulted in the past, or had a loved-one murdered, etc. to feel there should be a point where the perpetrators are forgiven. I'm not sure how I really feel about the issue. There's so many things to consider.
But.....as Susan Collins put it.........the important part for her is determining if K has been lying. I'm sure she's not minimizing what he may have done to Dr. Ford, but focusing in on his possible dishonesty, from a different perspective. One that is probably more reason to not confirm him, than his "teenage bad judgement" in today's political climate.
Chicken lady
9-24-18, 12:35pm
Forever. I hold people responsible forever. Because no matter what you may have done to render yourself incapable of making intelligent decisions, you are still responsible for your behavior.
I have messed up. And I own it. And if there is somehing I can do to make up for things I have messed up, I have a responsibility to do it. Hopefully I am the person who has learned and grown from the messing up, but I am still the person who did it.
if you loan me something and I lose it and I replace it and it only had material value, so you are out nothing, I can tell you how sorry I am, and how much more careful I will be, but it is still your choice when or if to ever feel comfortable loaning me anything ever again, and I have no right to demand your trust.
Williamsmith
9-24-18, 12:50pm
I can’t believe either side. I have no way of knowing. I have read the first accusers statement and it is very concise and well written. The accusation is far more serious than a “groping”. I’m more interested in the ability of K. to devote 100% of his energy to Supreme Court business. These accusations are not going away. He’s going to be distracted dealing with them. To say nothing of the turmoil this is causing. We have plenty of qualified jurists. Keep nominating until you find one whose past isn’t problematic. I would withdraw from the nomination process if I were K. Judges don’t particularly do well on the witness stand. Although, they always feel like they would. Eventually, if this is some “conspiracy” it will become a real farce if the next nominee runs into the same issues.
Teacher Terry
9-24-18, 12:55pm
I agree with CL. People should be held responsible forever. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
I don't consider attempted rape a youthful indiscretion. A crude pass, a stolen kiss, and if you're rebuffed, you apologize--those would be indiscretions. This doesn't sound anything like that.
Simplemind
9-24-18, 2:51pm
When it comes to person crimes - forever.
Just my .02 about the lifetime appointment for Supreme Court justices - that was put in place as part of the balance of power among the three branches of the government. The idea was that the Court would be not subject to politics like the legislative and executive branches. However, since Roe v. Wade, that has deteriorated. I still think lifetime appointment is a good thing.
As far as the initial question - I do think we hold people accountable for these types of actions. They are crimes. The interesting thing is that when the folks who are being held accountable now for their actions 30, 40 or more years ago, back then, these actions were winked at. So, they are being held to a higher standard now then when they committed these crimes. Fair? Maybe, maybe not. Their victims didn't get "fair" when it happened.
I agree with the PP, even if he BK isn't held accountable for the sexual assault(s), his responses are very telling. I think he needs to step aside.
Well, I drank and smoked dope in high school. I never injured anyone under the influence.
I didn't commit a felony of any sort. Forgiven for being a teen in a rural town in the west? Gee, I hope so. For a felony? No!
I believe in second chances. As long as people take responsibility, make amends and move on in a positive way, I'm fine with accepting who they are today. Not everyone can change, but I'm a sucker for redemption stories. I practically cried when Tiger Woods won yesterday.
The people I admire the most are those who change their lives for the better. There's nothing more courageous than that.
And what about the story of Anne Perry. When young, she and a friend killed the friend's mother. They did their time in jail and were released with new identities. She has gone on to lead a quiet life and write a huge number of quality books.
This whole issue has gotten out of control.
...
This whole issue has gotten out of control.
It sounds like Kavanaugh has a history of being out of control.
Teacher Terry
9-25-18, 10:45am
I am fine with people like Perry that did their time. Hopefully Cosby will do his and others like him.
I can't hold grudges for things people did in high school when they are middle aged. However, in this case, perhaps it will teach kids currently in high school that your past will come back to haunt you.
Teacher Terry
9-25-18, 11:08am
I taught my 3 boys to respect girls. If they attempted to rape someone in high school I don’t care how old they are they need to accept responsibility.
ToomuchStuff
9-25-18, 1:17pm
I absolutely think people should be forgiven at a certain point and the past let go. Ha, sometimes this is after serving a sentence but no noone should be held responsible forever. It's cruel and unusual.
It's like the Morgan Freeman character in the shawshank redemption, where he says something like: I don't even remember the young man who did that. It really is like this in real life sometimes where one's personality has so changed that they aren't the same person who did that once (although one first has to admit to the simple facts of having done what they did if they did it, even if the reasons are long forgotten. If they were too drug addled to even remember I don't know what to say). Even murderers should be forgiven at a certain point? Well yes, at a certain point IF it is likely they are no longer a danger to society (and I realize this gets into major gray areas of how to determine this). But that's the ultimate crime, everything else is less extreme.
So the guy I know, (we both competed for the same girl and he got her) who was just released after his 25 years for murder, should have his 2nd amendment rights reinstituted?
Also, I know of a church that declares forgiveness, while preaching about original sin. So this is a complex and often hypocritical issue.
Teacher Terry
9-25-18, 3:24pm
Cosby didn't even pretend to be sorry so he got 3-10 years in a maximum security prison. He is labeled a violent sexual predator. Lots of restrictions even if he lives to get out.
Andrew Luster got 105 years for a very similar crime in California. And, as I recall, he was remorseful.
His sentence was later reduced to 50 years. Either Cosby was very lucky, or Luster was not.
So the guy I know, (we both competed for the same girl and he got her) who was just released after his 25 years for murder, should have his 2nd amendment rights reinstituted?
Also, I know of a church that declares forgiveness, while preaching about original sin. So this is a complex and often hypocritical issue.
If he did the full term and is not on parole, why should he be denied a constitutional right? Who gets to chose what rights he has after he has done his time?
What if a 17 year old went for a joyride and was convicted. Can he never own a shotgun and go hunting again?
what about voting?
Curently you cant own a gun if you ever committed a felony. It doesn’t matter what the felony was. I’m not sure if you can vote in some states if your a felon either.
Ultralight
9-25-18, 5:35pm
I am curious about how people are held responsible not just in the past, but in this era.
A coworker of mine told me about a sort-of-friend of hers. Apparently her sort of friend posted a statement on facebook and her other social media accusing an ex boyfriend of raping her (the sort of friend), being sexually manipulative, and of sexually abusing her.
She said something like: "Joe Schmoe is a rapist. He raped me several years ago. He is also sexually manipulative and he is my abuser. I confronted him last year and he admitted to raping me and being sexually manipulative. Joe claims to be a feminist and marched to support Black Lives Matter. But he is really a rapist. And I am announcing this to prevent him from ever holding a position of power of any kind. I also want to prevent him from raping other women."
No arrest. No police investigation. No trial. No jury. No conviction.
Just social media.
I don't know if the guy responded.
I am curious about how people are held responsible not just in the past, but in this era.
A coworker of mine told me about a sort-of-friend of hers. Apparently her sort of friend posted a statement on facebook and her other social media accusing an ex boyfriend of raping her (the sort of friend), being sexually manipulative, and of sexually abusing her.
She said something like: "Joe Schmoe is a rapist. He raped me several years ago. He is also sexually manipulative and he is my abuser. I confronted him last year and he admitted to raping me and being sexually manipulative. Joe claims to be a feminist and marched to support Black Lives Matter. But he is really a rapist. And I am announcing this to prevent him from ever holding a position of power of any kind. I also want to prevent him from raping other women."
No arrest. No police investigation. No trial. No jury. No conviction.
Just social media.
I don't know if the guy responded.
Assuming the guy didn't actually do any of that stuff, that's why we have libel laws. If he's not a public figure and took her to civil court, I think the burden of proof would be on her to show she wasn't just being malicious.
The problem of false accusations of sex crimes is a real one, however. Such accusations may be rare, but they do happen, which is why maintaining due process is so important. Real sexual assault is a serious crime that needs to be investigated by police and prosecuted in a court of law. Trouble is, people need to be reminded that clumsy flirting isn't harassment, and bad sex isn't rape.
None of which bears on the Kavanaugh case, as far as I'm concerned. It's not a trial; it's a job interview. An employer can reject a job applicant for pretty much any reason they like, except for certain protected classes, none of which Kavanaugh belongs to.
If he did the full term and is not on parole, why should he be denied a constitutional right? Who gets to chose what rights he has after he has done his time?
What if a 17 year old went for a joyride and was convicted. Can he never own a shotgun and go hunting again?
what about voting?
Curently you cant own a gun if you ever committed a felony. It doesn’t matter what the felony was. I’m not sure if you can vote in some states if your a felon either.
While I agree that conviction of "any" felony should not bar one from owning a gun, or voting, if they have served their time I'm on the fence about restoring second amendment rights if that felony involved using a gun to harm someone. And I could probably be convinced that if the felony had to do with violating election laws that maybe restoration of voting rights should not be granted either although I don't have a solid opinion on that one way or the other at this point.
I'm also on the fence about sexual offender registries. I like the idea but I think that as currently administered they tend to be waaaaay too broad. Someone who pees on the side of a building because they were drunk, walking down the street and needed to pee can be convicted of indecent exposure and placed on a registry even if the only person around is the police officer who happened to see them. Or someone who, as a teen, took a naked pic of themselves to send to their boyfriend/girlfriend can be convicted of possession of child porn and be put on a registry. In cases like this the punishment is way worse than the crime.
Ultralight
9-26-18, 5:21am
Assuming the guy didn't actually do any of that stuff, that's why we have libel laws. If he's not a public figure and took her to civil court, I think the burden of proof would be on her to show she wasn't just being malicious.
I don't know if the guy did any of that or not. I don't know if my colleague's sort-of-friend is telling the truth or lying. It seems to be a police investigation should be in order, and all sorts of legal stuff.
Trial by social media is a messed up thing. The colleague of mine and her boss were talking about this and they are in full support of this woman and think other women should do the same.
I asked them if they wanted a society where "trial by social media" was an acceptable way to handle accusations of horrible crimes, and they thought it was. They said: "Women have no other way to get justice."
Miss Cellaneous
9-26-18, 9:49am
I asked them if they wanted a society where "trial by social media" was an acceptable way to handle accusations of horrible crimes, and they thought it was. They said: "Women have no other way to get justice."
That sentence nails the problem. Here in the US, we have a problem with trying cases of sexual assault. I'm old enough that I can remember when women who had been raped were advised not to press charges, because of what would happen to them during the trial. Every past sexual encounter would be dragged up and used to show that the victim of the rape had been "asking for it." We had to pass laws that prior sexual encounters could not be used in judging a rape case.
Think about that. The victim was basically put on trial for being a woman who had sex.
Things are slightly better today, but not by much. Look at the Brock Turner case. Friends of Brock Turner think that having to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life is too harsh a punishment. His father can't believe that 20 minutes in the life of a 20 year old should affect his entire future. On the other side of the argument, Turner's punishment is seen as a slap on the wrist, not nearly enough to compensate for what he did.
Or do some research on the Taylor Swift case, where a DJ sued her, because she complained to his employer that he touched her inappropriately and the employer fired him. Look at some of the questions she was asked--even today, women are questioned as to how their choice of clothing might have led to the assault, instead of the default being men just being expected to keep their hands to themselves.
A great many women do feel that courts are not treating the victims of sexual assault fairly. Until that changes, some of them will use what means they can. I'm not sure I condone this, but I sure as heck understand the motives behind it.
ApatheticNoMore
9-26-18, 10:50am
well holding people accountable and how long assumes they actually did something (which is likely the case here) but thoroughly false accusations, they could very well be used as a bullying tactic.
Bullying is at least as common and prevalent a dark side of human nature as sexual harassment (sexual assault is probably less common but I don't know). I guess look at the power dynamics at play, if people are ganging up on someone without power anyway (not the case here though politics may be the case), there is a decent chance it's bullying (but it could also be true - well yea that's the problem of determining the facts).
Teacher Terry
9-26-18, 11:23am
When you are convicted of a felony you lose your rights to vote, etc. Some states allow your rights to be restored. The sex offender laws don’t differentiate between minor crimes and real sexual offenses as someone else noted and ruins people’s lives.
ApatheticNoMore
9-26-18, 12:39pm
When you are convicted of a felony you lose your rights to vote, etc. Some states allow your rights to be restored.
disagree with this of course, people shouldn't be disenfranchised (and if someone thinks criminals are such a large part of the population that we must deny them their right to vote, then Houston we've got way bigger problems than that at that point :~) )
I don't know if the guy did any of that or not. I don't know if my colleague's sort-of-friend is telling the truth or lying. It seems to be a police investigation should be in order, and all sorts of legal stuff.
Trial by social media is a messed up thing. The colleague of mine and her boss were talking about this and they are in full support of this woman and think other women should do the same.
I asked them if they wanted a society where "trial by social media" was an acceptable way to handle accusations of horrible crimes, and they thought it was. They said: "Women have no other way to get justice."
When they said that, I hope you pointed out that's the justification used by lynch mobs.
Of course the legal system isn't perfect--never was, never will be. But the alternative is much worse.
I try to put myself in the place of a woman who has been sexually assaulted, especially by someone she knows or someone who is in a position of power. I remain skeptical of the defense for not coming forward immediately that one often hears: "I was so traumatized that it took all this time before I felt I was able to tell my story." I have no doubt it's very hard, but sometimes in life you have to do things that are hard.
Let me put it another way. I am not a courageous person. If I were sexually assaulted, I'm not sure what I would do. But I certainly would know what I should do.
Miss Cellaneous
9-26-18, 2:59pm
When they said that, I hope you pointed out that's the justification used by lunch mobs.
Of course the legal system isn't perfect--never was, never will be. But the alternative is much worse.
I try to put myself in the place of a woman who has been sexually assaulted, especially by someone she knows or someone who is in a position of power. I remain skeptical of the defense for not coming forward immediately that one often hears: "I was so traumatized that it took all this time before I felt I was able to tell my story." I have no doubt it's very hard, but sometimes in life you have to do things that are hard.
Let me put it another way. I am not a courageous person. If I were sexually assaulted, I'm not sure what I would do. But I certainly would know what I should do.
So I just stumbled across an article from the BBC, which addresses many of these issues--why victims remember some but not all details, the delay in reporting. It's an interesting read: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180926-myths-about-sexual-assault-and-rape-debunked
A couple of nuggets of information from the article: It is estimated that 2 out of 3 sexual assaults in the US go unreported. In the US 18% of reported sexual assaults result in convictions. For me, as a woman, those are troubling figures. But this I think ties in with the feelings of the women that Ultralight knows--they feel that the official justice system can't or won't help them, so they are trying other strategies.
For what it's worth, I think many women don't report, not because of trauma, but because of our "blame the victim" attitude on this. Why were you wearing that? Why were you on that dark street/hiking by yourself/alone at a bar? Are you sure you didn't lead him on? Just like the high school dress codes for girls that are all about "not distracting the boys," the majority mindset in the US is that women who are assaulted are in some way to blame.
Again, I refer you to the Taylor Swift lawsuit. She was at a fan meet-and-greet event when a man touched her inappropriately. At the trial, she was asked why she didn't make a scene right then and there--as if making a scene would be the only proper action to take. Her response was that she didn't want to ruin the event for her fans--which is, to me, a valid reason. She's a professional, she tried to act professionally in the moment. But even that was cast back at her.
I remember very clearly attending a formal dinner in my 20s. The guy sitting to my right kept putting his hand on my leg--I had not met him before this dinner. When gently removing his hand, pinching his hand, stepping on his foot all did not work to keep his hand where it belonged, I turned to him and quietly, politely, asked him to take his hand off my thigh. You would have thought I had done something horrible, based on the reactions of the others at my table. His wife started yelling at me, my date got angry with me for flirting with the guy--which, trust me, I was not doing. The general consensus was that I had ruined the evening for everyone at the table, when the reality was that it was the man sitting to my right. The guy who took me to the dinner broke up with me. (Obviously, not a huge loss.) But I encourage you to ponder why I was considered in the wrong, when I just wanted to keep my body to myself, and no one, except maybe the guy's wife, saw him as doing anything wrong? I guess they all felt I should have handled it more discreetly, but that wasn't working.
If you read transcripts of the trial, Swift keeps making the same point over and over. It doesn't matter what she was wearing or what she was doing or what she did or did not do after the assault--the guy should not have touched her where he did. (For those who know nothing about the lawsuit, she complained to the guy's employer, who fired him. He then sued Swift because he lost his job due to her complaint. She counter-sued, for $1, and won. He has yet to pay the fine.)
Ultralight
9-26-18, 4:55pm
So I just stumbled across an article from the BBC, which addresses many of these issues--why victims remember some but not all details, the delay in reporting. It's an interesting read: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180926-myths-about-sexual-assault-and-rape-debunked
A couple of nuggets of information from the article: It is estimated that 2 out of 3 sexual assaults in the US go unreported. In the US 18% of reported sexual assaults result in convictions. For me, as a woman, those are troubling figures. But this I think ties in with the feelings of the women that Ultralight knows--they feel that the official justice system can't or won't help them, so they are trying other strategies.
For what it's worth, I think many women don't report, not because of trauma, but because of our "blame the victim" attitude on this. Why were you wearing that? Why were you on that dark street/hiking by yourself/alone at a bar? Are you sure you didn't lead him on? Just like the high school dress codes for girls that are all about "not distracting the boys," the majority mindset in the US is that women who are assaulted are in some way to blame.
Again, I refer you to the Taylor Swift lawsuit. She was at a fan meet-and-greet event when a man touched her inappropriately. At the trial, she was asked why she didn't make a scene right then and there--as if making a scene would be the only proper action to take. Her response was that she didn't want to ruin the event for her fans--which is, to me, a valid reason. She's a professional, she tried to act professionally in the moment. But even that was cast back at her.
I remember very clearly attending a formal dinner in my 20s. The guy sitting to my right kept putting his hand on my leg--I had not met him before this dinner. When gently removing his hand, pinching his hand, stepping on his foot all did not work to keep his hand where it belonged, I turned to him and quietly, politely, asked him to take his hand off my thigh. You would have thought I had done something horrible, based on the reactions of the others at my table. His wife started yelling at me, my date got angry with me for flirting with the guy--which, trust me, I was not doing. The general consensus was that I had ruined the evening for everyone at the table, when the reality was that it was the man sitting to my right. The guy who took me to the dinner broke up with me. (Obviously, not a huge loss.) But I encourage you to ponder why I was considered in the wrong, when I just wanted to keep my body to myself, and no one, except maybe the guy's wife, saw him as doing anything wrong? I guess they all felt I should have handled it more discreetly, but that wasn't working.
If you read transcripts of the trial, Swift keeps making the same point over and over. It doesn't matter what she was wearing or what she was doing or what she did or did not do after the assault--the guy should not have touched her where he did. (For those who know nothing about the lawsuit, she complained to the guy's employer, who fired him. He then sued Swift because he lost his job due to her complaint. She counter-sued, for $1, and won. He has yet to pay the fine.)
But if a person can accuse someone on social media of committing horrible crimes of sexual violence and that be considered acceptable. Then another person could say: "Sally abuses her kids!" or "Mark kicks puppies!" or "Susan is a crack whore" or "Mitch is a heroin junkie" and so on.
Do you want to live that way? In that sort of a society?
happystuff
9-27-18, 7:31am
But if a person can accuse someone on social media of committing horrible crimes of sexual violence and that be considered acceptable. Then another person could say: "Sally abuses her kids!" or "Mark kicks puppies!" or "Susan is a crack whore" or "Mitch is a heroin junkie" and so on.
Do you want to live that way? In that sort of a society?
This is already happening! We are already living in that society and it seems anyone on social media is able to say anything they want via tweets, instagram, facebook, etc. From the president down to the 2nd grader who already has their own cell phone.
Miss Cellaneous
9-27-18, 2:53pm
But if a person can accuse someone on social media of committing horrible crimes of sexual violence and that be considered acceptable. Then another person could say: "Sally abuses her kids!" or "Mark kicks puppies!" or "Susan is a crack whore" or "Mitch is a heroin junkie" and so on.
Do you want to live that way? In that sort of a society?
No, I don't want to live that way.
My point was that there is a significant number of women for whom #timeup is becoming #Iamfedup. If the current system of police and courts continues to fail the victims of sexual assault, then those victims will find another way to strive for justice. Right now, one way is social media.
We have choices. We can fix the broken system so that women have a chance at a fair trial when they are the victims of sexual assault. Or we can let things continue, in which case, yes, social media will be used to out assailants. If you don't think the system is broken, try Googling the number of untested rape kits in the US. And how long some of them have been sitting in evidence rooms, untested.
The fear you have of lies being posted on social media--it is already happening. It's nothing new; it's been around since people wrote graffiti in Pompeii. It just reaches more people on the internet. Our president uses social media to make unsubstantiated remarks about people all the time.
ApatheticNoMore
9-27-18, 3:43pm
those lies on social media are important in a way that graffiti is not, so no it's not the same thing, false comparison of the century. And they are important in a way that the presidents tweets are not especially as he has very little credibility himself. So no. They could affect things that actually matter like job prospects. Personally I don't think anyone should be on social media at all ever except if they have to (if you think you have to have a linked-in for job searching, have one. If your job or your business involves doing advertising or PR on social media than do so etc.). But otherwise if it's just for fun, stay far far far away. I don't do social media.
Uh and who doesn't have problems getting justice in the current criminal justice system? Most criminal charges never even go to trial, so many of those serving time got dubious justice one could argue.
Miss Cellaneous
9-27-18, 3:56pm
those lies on social media are important in a way that graffiti is not, so no it's not the same thing, false comparison of the century. And they are important in a way that the presidents tweets are not especially as he has very little credibility himself. So no. They could affect things that actually matter like job prospects. Personally I don't think anyone should be on social media at all ever except if they have to (if you think you have to have a linked-in for job searching, have one. If your job or your business involves doing advertising or PR on social media than do so etc.). But otherwise if it's just for fun, stay far far far away. I don't do social media.
Uh and who doesn't have problems getting justice in the current criminal justice system? Most criminal charges never even go to trial, so many of those serving time got dubious justice one could argue.
I was not referring to modern graffitti, but the graffiti of hundreds of years ago, which was the social media of its time. And a certain percentage of the US population does indeed believe every word tweeted by the president. I work with people who are Ever Trumpers.
But again, you missed my point. Many women are upset about the way our society treats the victims of sexual assault. If you would prefer social media not be used to out sexual predators, you can work to find more acceptable systems for these victims to get justice.
People have been lying since the Garden of Eden. The internet just spreads the lies faster. And the truth. Nothing is new. Nothing has changed. False accusations are not the result of social media.
ApatheticNoMore
9-27-18, 4:01pm
No the system does not need to be perfect for one to question the wisdom and uses of vigilante justice (if it has uses one better think long and hard about what they are). So no I do not need to reform the entire system to do so. I care very little about powerful people like Kavanaugh and whether he passes his job interview or not, people like him make life miserable for the rest of us even when we don't know him, though with Trump and present congress they are all going to be just as bad probably.
In the case of Bill Cosby we don't. An purported oral agreement that wouldn't hold any weight with something as straightforward as a real estate transaction is enough to spring him from prison.
gimmethesimplelife
7-1-21, 10:33am
Catherine, I am posting here this time not having read the prior posts, something I don't usually do but I find myself time crunched these days. Interesting question. I to this day have a great deal of guilt regarding the Holocaust given my Austrian heritage though I have never been anti-Semetic and have never actually legally BEEN an Austrian. Not to mention that I was born in 1966 - 21 years after the end of the war. But I still have a great deal of guilt.
Point? No one forced this guilt per se - yet I still hold it. Think of all the situations in society where guilt is expected or one is shamed into feeling guilty or at least the attempt is made to shame one into feeling guilty. Think of all the situations where feeling guilty would be the sane and human response. I guess I'm not directly answering your question because I don't find this one the slightest bit easy - it's very challenging. I'll come back once I've thought it over more. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
7-1-21, 10:36am
In the case of Bill Cosby we don't. An purported oral agreement that wouldn't hold any weight with something as straightforward as a real estate transaction is enough to spring him from prison.Given that I am making some effort to avoid controversy here, I did not begin a Cosby thread. All I'm going to say is that I am against Cosby being released given the nature/gravity of his crimes - especially when what sprung him free was a legal technicality. It seems to me that honoring this technicality was more important to the court than Cosby's crimes/suffering of his victims. I can't blame women in general for being furious regarding Cosby's release - not one iota. Rob
Catherine, I am posting here this time not having read the prior posts, something I don't usually do but I find myself time crunched these days. Interesting question. I to this day have a great deal of guilt regarding the Holocaust given my Austrian heritage though I have never been anti-Semetic and have never actually legally BEEN an Austrian. Not to mention that I was born in 1966 - 21 years after the end of the war. But I still have a great deal of guilt.
Point? No one forced this guilt per se - yet I still hold it. Think of all the situations in society where guilt is expected or one is shamed into feeling guilty or at least the attempt is made to shame one into feeling guilty. Think of all the situations where feeling guilty would be the sane and human response. I guess I'm not directly answering your question because I don't find this one the slightest bit easy - it's very challenging. I'll come back once I've thought it over more. Rob
You may have attributed someone else's question to me. My only post on this thread was the point that I believe in redemption and forgiveness as core human values. From a legal perspective, that's a lot different. Society will determine the "crime" and the retribution to be served.
As far as your personal guilt--I'm Catholic, too, at least in my DNA--so I understand guilt, but Christ didn't make people feel guilty--he embraced them all. And I really don't believe in guilt by association. In fact, to invoke the gospel again, Christ said "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." and the way I take that is, you are separate from your bloodline. You are responsible for your own free life. Rob, the way we "pay for the sins of our fathers" is by being good people today, and that goodness has to borne out of freedom from the past.
iris lilies
7-1-21, 11:51am
It is always a WTF moment when obviously guilty people get off on a legal technicality. It is seldom anything our little non-leagally trained brains can accept. I always try to keep in mind that the justice system is not about justice, it is a legal system. It is about legality. That in itself is a great equalizer in the big picture, but once you (the generic you) enter the legal system you can’t count on justice being carried out.
gimmethesimplelife
7-1-21, 11:55am
You may have attributed someone else's question to me. My only post on this thread was the point that I believe in redemption and forgiveness as core human values. From a legal perspective, that's a lot different. Society will determine the "crime" and the retribution to be served.
As far as your personal guilt--I'm Catholic, too, at least in my DNA--so I understand guilt, but Christ didn't make people feel guilty--he embraced them all. And I really don't believe in guilt by association. In fact, to invoke the gospel again, Christ said "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." and the way I take that is, you are separate from your bloodline. You are responsible for your own free life. Rob, the way we "pay for the sins of our fathers" is by being good people today, and that goodness has to borne out of freedom from the past.It was Cathy A who started this thread - sorry, botched that. Had a middle aged moment, what can I say LOL? Rob
While I agree that it's terrible that Bill Cosby has gotten off from something that he most certainly did do, the legal analysis that I've read about this actually seems reasonable. Essentially it amounts to the fact that Cosby would not have waived his right to utilize the fifth amendment unless an agreement was in place, and if the agreement was not in place his lawyer would have been committing malpractice if he allowed him to speak. (and Cosby had good lawyers so it's quite unlikely that that would have occurred) The whole "and can never be tried again" part, though, is ridiculous because it amounts to the DA being able to give out pardons to people.
happystuff
7-1-21, 12:43pm
I think "guilty/not-guilty" decreed by the legal system will prove to be different from the "court of public opinion". Freed by the legal system, I think he will still be considered - and probably/possibly - be treated by most people in general as guilty.
happystuff
7-1-21, 12:45pm
Guilt - hard to live with it, hardly ever live without it. (at least for some people, myself included)
gimmethesimplelife
7-1-21, 12:48pm
You may have attributed someone else's question to me. My only post on this thread was the point that I believe in redemption and forgiveness as core human values. From a legal perspective, that's a lot different. Society will determine the "crime" and the retribution to be served.
As far as your personal guilt--I'm Catholic, too, at least in my DNA--so I understand guilt, but Christ didn't make people feel guilty--he embraced them all. And I really don't believe in guilt by association. In fact, to invoke the gospel again, Christ said "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." and the way I take that is, you are separate from your bloodline. You are responsible for your own free life. Rob, the way we "pay for the sins of our fathers" is by being good people today, and that goodness has to borne out of freedom from the past.Today I close and I was not called in early for once so I have had a little time to spend here and I've missed it! Thank You for your last two sentences.....not only do I suspect you are dead on, but more than that, you are really making me think. Always appreciated. Rob
It is always a WTF moment when obviously guilty people get off on a legal technicality. It is seldom anything our little non-leagally trained brains can accept. I always try to keep in mind that the justice system is not about justice, it is a legal system. It is about legality. That in itself is a great equalizer in the big picture, but once you (the generic you) enter the legal system you can’t count on justice being carried out.
One hopes that the legal system results in justice but they are not the same. Well stated, IL.
Teacher Terry
7-1-21, 1:44pm
As much as I hate Cosby being free he never should have been convicted because of the agreement.
Calling the foolish conduct of the prosecutor "a legal technicality" I think misses the entire point of our legal system.
Might be worth reading the Court decision...
I wouldn’t want to live in a country where prosecutors can renege on agreements with suspects. I suspect most of us wouldn’t speak so disparagingly of “technicalities” if it were our life and freedom on the line.
iris lilies
7-1-21, 2:52pm
Calling the foolish conduct of the prosecutor "a legal technicality" I think misses the entire point of our legal system.
Might be worth reading the Court decision...
That is how mainstream media refers to it, and that term “technicality” makes some sense if not entire sense because he wasn't let off due to findings of fact about him doing the deed(s).
But agreed that the law is the law, it is interpreted and carried out by humans, and those human don’t always act right. This is a good case to illustrate to young prosecutors how not to act.
He is going to do it again and get charged again. Already there is talk of a case in California still within the statute of limitations.
Cosby has a house in Western Mass. (He got a supposedly earned doctorate at UMass but didn't have to meet the normal requirements. It should have been termed an honorary doctorate.) Anyways one of the guys at work was saying he had a picture of himself with Cosby. Sure enough, there he is on the left, Cosby on the right, and squeezed in the middle next to Cosby thigh to thigh on this couch is a pretty young woman less than half his age, who my coworker told me was Cosby's employee. I felt sorry for her, wondering what she might be subject to - leering glances at a minimum I would think.
Andrew Luster committed similar crimes in California. His 124-year sentence was eventually modified to 50, IIRC. I thought ten would have been fair, but what do I know. At any rate, he's probably wishing he'd had a better attorney about now.
Cosby looks like he's home from a spa weekend, and no longer lame or blind, apparently.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.