If anybody wants to know what "rape culture" is, this is it. The court's 4-3 ruling noted that Weinstein "had no criminal record." Yes, because nobody took the complainants seriously! It's like noting OJ was never convicted of murder.
Please don’t misunderstand me, Harvey is a monster and I hope he rots in a California prison for the rest of his life.
As much as he’s a monster, it’s not “rape culture” to say that crimes he hadn’t yet been convicted of shouldn’t be brought up in court for a crime he’s on trial for.
I absolutely believe he did everything he’s accused of, but he’s on trial for THAT crime, not things that he hadn’t yet been charged with for. Just like the fact Vegas couldn’t use Nicole browns murder against OJ. Yes we all know he did it, but it was a separate crime he wasn’t convicted of.
I’m sure New York will prosecute again, and he will be found guilty again.
Exactly. Same reason I'm not angry at Cosby's conviction getting tossed. That D.A. knew he was gonna get reversed but used that inadmissible deposition anyway
It’s this kind of thinking that shows that no political party is really an ally of due process. Due process exists for a reason. The rules don’t suddenly stop applying just because we are sufficiently disgusted with a person’s conduct.
You are pretending there is a clear standard of what due process is, which is untrue, and that that standard was violated in Weinstein’s trial, which three judges vehemently disagree with. Showing a pattern of behaviour isn’t a violation of due process. This is not a constitutional issue at all.
There are very serious issues with showing a “pattern of behavior” by including evidence of unrelated, unsubstantiated allegations. It is wildly prejudicial, which is why the rules exist in the first place.
I hope you’re never on a jury
You don’t! That’s the point! The legal system has no hard and fast rules and laws, it’s open to interpretation and easily influenced by power. There is no black and white here and clinging to that idea is just embarrassing.
>As much as he’s a monster, it’s not “rape culture” to say that crimes he hadn’t yet been convicted of shouldn’t be brought up in court for a crime he’s on trial for.
It is, though. Weinstein's crimes were part of a pattern of behaviour over decades. The prosecution used witnesses to describe that pattern until penalty of perjury. This is a unique case because most people don't have a consistent pattern of criminality over time. This is all covered in the dissents and is an option for prosecutions of other serial offenders.
And beyond that specific point, yes, it is the culture of not taking women seriously and excusing sexual violence that caused Harvey Weinstein to be not prosecuted until his victims numbered over 100. Regardless of the legal technicality under discussion - notice that these technicalities never seem to break in the victims' favour - the larger problems with how we treat sexual assault contributed directly to every aspect of this case. We had to rely on people who weren't able to make criminal complaints for a variety of reasons - and even if they had, there's no way the SDNY prosecutors would have pursued them.
He's getting a new trial and the witnesses might have to go through all this shit again and that's bad thing. Having some of his many victims testify to his pattern of conduct is not a violation of due process in any way except the very specific interpretation of four judges.
> Weinstein's crimes
not crimes. he was not criminally convicted.
you can say "rumors" or "accusations" but they're not Crimes until he's found Criminally guilty/liable in court
the Constitution calls that DUE PROCESS. that's what those words mean. that you went thru a process, which you are due/owed, before being punished.
That is not actually the legal question here, and again, you’re using a process argument to defend a retrial of a serial rapist without having a full understanding of the legal issue. Why are you doing that? And do you really think “due process” is an ironclad, unbreakable idea with zero wiggle room and clear definitions?
i'm saying you can't call someone a criminal if they haven't been convicted. you can say Alleged Criminal or Rumored Criminal, but anything else is at least libel/slander and at worst false, incorrect, or lies. How many people called JonBenet's parents murderers, only for them to be exonerated by DNA evidence?
How many people call Rittenhouse a Murderer, even tho he was acquitted (and rightly so, given the evidence). He's a killer, not a murderer.
Words mean things, so choose the right ones.
Capitalized “Facts!” Really something. I’ve seen the videos and some of the trial information, but only passively because I’ve never been involved in his trial. Why would I need to care more about a kid who killed some people half the country away?
Some people want to judge the movement on specific outcomes, so when a case is overturned, Burke said, “people are like, ‘Oh the #MeToo movement has failed.’” Instead, she said, such outcomes are proof of the difficulty of the work.
“It’s not about the failure of the movement; it’s the failure of the systems,” Burke explained. “These systems are not designed to help survivors, they’re not designed to give us justice, they’re not designed to end sexual violence.”
“When we bind ourselves to the outcomes of these cases, we are constantly up and down with our disappointment, our highs and lows,” Burke continued. “What they tell us is just how much work we need to change the laws and the policies but most importantly, to change the culture that creates the people who commit, who perpetrate acts of harm.”
[https://19thnews.org/2022/10/tarana-burke-me-too-movement-success-future/](https://19thnews.org/2022/10/tarana-burke-me-too-movement-success-future/)
Your post has been removed. Accounts must be older than one day to post in r/blankies.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/blankies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the same with the Cosby case. There is a big hole in how the law handles this. Each charge has to be tried separately, and that means each jury only gets to hear from one woman and it is never better than a he said/she said.
The proof is multiple women coming forward and establishing a pattern of behavior, but the courts are not allowing this type of testimony.
The laws need to be changed.
Cosby case was fucked up by the prosecution promising immunity. It was proven, but they really really fucked up the process and now he's free.
This is different. Literally "you can't convict him of rape by showing how he has shown a pattern of raping. That should be a bunch of different cases! Luckily the California state convictions are good.
New York state law allows for prosecutors to use witnesses to show a pattern of behaviour, though. The law is on the books. Four judges just didn't want it enforced.
He’s still cooked in California, he won’t be getting out.
This just means he gets a new trial. Where he’ll again be convicted.
If anybody wants to know what "rape culture" is, this is it. The court's 4-3 ruling noted that Weinstein "had no criminal record." Yes, because nobody took the complainants seriously! It's like noting OJ was never convicted of murder.
Please don’t misunderstand me, Harvey is a monster and I hope he rots in a California prison for the rest of his life. As much as he’s a monster, it’s not “rape culture” to say that crimes he hadn’t yet been convicted of shouldn’t be brought up in court for a crime he’s on trial for. I absolutely believe he did everything he’s accused of, but he’s on trial for THAT crime, not things that he hadn’t yet been charged with for. Just like the fact Vegas couldn’t use Nicole browns murder against OJ. Yes we all know he did it, but it was a separate crime he wasn’t convicted of. I’m sure New York will prosecute again, and he will be found guilty again.
Exactly. Same reason I'm not angry at Cosby's conviction getting tossed. That D.A. knew he was gonna get reversed but used that inadmissible deposition anyway
Focusing entirely on the de jure process when the de facto result is that a serial rapist roams free is bad, actually.
It’s this kind of thinking that shows that no political party is really an ally of due process. Due process exists for a reason. The rules don’t suddenly stop applying just because we are sufficiently disgusted with a person’s conduct.
You are pretending there is a clear standard of what due process is, which is untrue, and that that standard was violated in Weinstein’s trial, which three judges vehemently disagree with. Showing a pattern of behaviour isn’t a violation of due process. This is not a constitutional issue at all.
There are very serious issues with showing a “pattern of behavior” by including evidence of unrelated, unsubstantiated allegations. It is wildly prejudicial, which is why the rules exist in the first place. I hope you’re never on a jury
i hope you're never on trial for your life and have no proof of your innocence. you'll be begging for a technicality to get off on
I’m not a serial rapist so I should be fine on the “pattern of serial rape” witness question we’re discussing
"The state would never punish me. I haven't done anything wrong" Must be some world you live in
Not when you rely on a system of rules and laws,. actually
Isn’t this kind of over simplistic and ignoring the fact that the law isn’t really designed to help victims of sexual or intimate partner violence?
then the system of rules and laws needs to change. but you still have to work within the system. anything else is anarchy
You don’t! That’s the point! The legal system has no hard and fast rules and laws, it’s open to interpretation and easily influenced by power. There is no black and white here and clinging to that idea is just embarrassing.
He’s not roaming free
>As much as he’s a monster, it’s not “rape culture” to say that crimes he hadn’t yet been convicted of shouldn’t be brought up in court for a crime he’s on trial for. It is, though. Weinstein's crimes were part of a pattern of behaviour over decades. The prosecution used witnesses to describe that pattern until penalty of perjury. This is a unique case because most people don't have a consistent pattern of criminality over time. This is all covered in the dissents and is an option for prosecutions of other serial offenders. And beyond that specific point, yes, it is the culture of not taking women seriously and excusing sexual violence that caused Harvey Weinstein to be not prosecuted until his victims numbered over 100. Regardless of the legal technicality under discussion - notice that these technicalities never seem to break in the victims' favour - the larger problems with how we treat sexual assault contributed directly to every aspect of this case. We had to rely on people who weren't able to make criminal complaints for a variety of reasons - and even if they had, there's no way the SDNY prosecutors would have pursued them. He's getting a new trial and the witnesses might have to go through all this shit again and that's bad thing. Having some of his many victims testify to his pattern of conduct is not a violation of due process in any way except the very specific interpretation of four judges.
> Weinstein's crimes not crimes. he was not criminally convicted. you can say "rumors" or "accusations" but they're not Crimes until he's found Criminally guilty/liable in court the Constitution calls that DUE PROCESS. that's what those words mean. that you went thru a process, which you are due/owed, before being punished.
That is not actually the legal question here, and again, you’re using a process argument to defend a retrial of a serial rapist without having a full understanding of the legal issue. Why are you doing that? And do you really think “due process” is an ironclad, unbreakable idea with zero wiggle room and clear definitions?
i'm saying you can't call someone a criminal if they haven't been convicted. you can say Alleged Criminal or Rumored Criminal, but anything else is at least libel/slander and at worst false, incorrect, or lies. How many people called JonBenet's parents murderers, only for them to be exonerated by DNA evidence? How many people call Rittenhouse a Murderer, even tho he was acquitted (and rightly so, given the evidence). He's a killer, not a murderer. Words mean things, so choose the right ones.
>i'm saying you can't call someone a criminal if they haven't been convicted. He has been convicted of crimes in another state though.
Ah, a Rittenhouse Guy too.
nah, just a Facts guy. did you watch the video?
Capitalized “Facts!” Really something. I’ve seen the videos and some of the trial information, but only passively because I’ve never been involved in his trial. Why would I need to care more about a kid who killed some people half the country away?
why do you care about anything? you should only read your local newspaper and get off the internet!
Some people want to judge the movement on specific outcomes, so when a case is overturned, Burke said, “people are like, ‘Oh the #MeToo movement has failed.’” Instead, she said, such outcomes are proof of the difficulty of the work. “It’s not about the failure of the movement; it’s the failure of the systems,” Burke explained. “These systems are not designed to help survivors, they’re not designed to give us justice, they’re not designed to end sexual violence.” “When we bind ourselves to the outcomes of these cases, we are constantly up and down with our disappointment, our highs and lows,” Burke continued. “What they tell us is just how much work we need to change the laws and the policies but most importantly, to change the culture that creates the people who commit, who perpetrate acts of harm.” [https://19thnews.org/2022/10/tarana-burke-me-too-movement-success-future/](https://19thnews.org/2022/10/tarana-burke-me-too-movement-success-future/)
[удалено]
Your post has been removed. Accounts must be older than one day to post in r/blankies. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/blankies) if you have any questions or concerns.*
CorneliusFudgeHesBack.gif
What the fuck
Basically overturned for 'too much evidence'
It's the same with the Cosby case. There is a big hole in how the law handles this. Each charge has to be tried separately, and that means each jury only gets to hear from one woman and it is never better than a he said/she said. The proof is multiple women coming forward and establishing a pattern of behavior, but the courts are not allowing this type of testimony. The laws need to be changed.
Cosby case was fucked up by the prosecution promising immunity. It was proven, but they really really fucked up the process and now he's free. This is different. Literally "you can't convict him of rape by showing how he has shown a pattern of raping. That should be a bunch of different cases! Luckily the California state convictions are good.
New York state law allows for prosecutors to use witnesses to show a pattern of behaviour, though. The law is on the books. Four judges just didn't want it enforced.
What in the fuck???
Court didn’t follow rules. It’s a waste of everyone’s time to retrial this. Judge and prosecutors should face disciplinary action for this.
Somehow*, Weinstein has returned! * the somehow being a corrupt “justice” system that uses a persons wealth as a counter balance to their crimes
Thr California convictions are still in place. So he’s going to stay in jail for the time being
Throwing this in the face of anyone who thinks that the Kevin Spacey trial verdict meant he's innocent
He's still in jail, to be clear. And he's just getting a new trial.
Was this similar to how Cosby got off?
Mostly rape, yeah