Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To remain ethical we have to go by law? Law can be unethical too, it is entirely up to those who make and/or wield the law how ethical the law is.

 feeder wrote:
I forsee 60 civil suits for damages against his estate. That's why his family are protesting so hard. The gravy train is leaving the station, and they might not be on it.

Cosby's family can protect a portion of the assets. Legal separation and all that. Cosby's money is divided out as per a legal settlement and the plaintiffs can have Cosby's portion.
They have no right to his families money though, unless there is proof of culpability. A greedy lawyer will try and take more though, as they get a % of anything they take. The Cosby family will be wise to have a legal settlement now, if they havent done so already.

This is what happened to Larry Nassar, his wife got a quickie divorce which was uncontested. Nassar didnt contest so his own kids will not be out of pocket. In the trial back in January a number of the 'sister survivors' refused claims against Nassar for the sake of his family, a number knew Nassar;'s kids personally. I can respect that, but other claimants lawyers will nab the lot anyway unless funds and assets are legally seperated.

I have zero problems with Cosby's or Nassar's relatives claiming the lions share of the respective estates so they can maintain their way of life. If Cosby is wise he will not oppose this but will cooperate with giving his wife and kids as large a share as possible. He can't divest the lot though, the state argues on the accused's behalf to spare monies for claimants, and technically so the convicted has money to live on post release. Though the latter isnt a plausible consideration is Cosby's and Nassar's cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
To remain ethical we have to go by law? Law can be unethical too, it is entirely up to those who make and/or wield the law how ethical the law is.

Yes this is true. Sometimes criminals walk on technicalities, though loopholes should be closed. In Polanski's case the prosecution was bungled. It is the prosecutors fault if Polanski is offered a misdemeanour child rape rap; it is their fault if that doesnt make sense, and it is also not Polanski's fault if a plea bargain is reneged upon by a judge.
It's a plea bargain, not a point of truth, Polanski agreed to allow himself to be labelled as a child rapist if the consequences were a misdemeanour wristslap. in a plea bargain this doesnt otherwise make an admission of guilt, the admission is conditional and doesnt even have to be factually accurate. Without the plea agreement there is no ownership of the label of child rapist on Polanski, not without a trial.
The case against Polanski has never been tested with burden of proof, technically he remains innocent.

To be technically innocent but also a labelled child rapist under law is a moral aberration. I can see why Swiss and French defence teams were able to repeatedly kick this into touch, and why he remains at liberty in those countries and will remain so.

Frankly the whole principle of plea bargaining is fethed. The Polanski case is just an extreme example.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
To remain ethical we have to go by law? Law can be unethical too, it is entirely up to those who make and/or wield the law how ethical the law is.

Yes this is true. Sometimes criminals walk on technicalities, though loopholes should be closed. In Polanski's case the prosecution was bungled. It is the prosecutors fault if Polanski is offered a misdemeanour child rape rap; it is their fault if that doesnt make sense, and it is also not Polanski's fault if a plea bargain is reneged upon by a judge.
It's a plea bargain, not a point of truth, Polanski agreed to allow himself to be labelled as a child rapist if the consequences were a misdemeanour wristslap. in a plea bargain this doesnt otherwise make an admission of guilt, the admission is conditional and doesnt even have to be factually accurate. Without the plea agreement there is no ownership of the label of child rapist on Polanski, not without a trial.
The case against Polanski has never been tested with burden of proof, technically he remains innocent.

To be technically innocent but also a labelled child rapist under law is a moral aberration. I can see why Swiss and French defence teams were able to repeatedly kick this into touch, and why he remains at liberty in those countries and will remain so.

Frankly the whole principle of plea bargaining is fethed. The Polanski case is just an extreme example.

No argument that the plea bargain renegement was incredibly damaging to the overall system. But in the end while Polanski remains technically innocent we all know he committed statutory rape, he himself never denied having sex. Polanski is far from the only case that we could call a botched trial, I mean just look at what happened after My Lai.

The issue is that when he fled, Polanski actually committed a crime. I don't think France is a good representative of the case, seeing as how the French government openly supported Polanski for decades and France can decide not to extradite its own citizens to the US. He actively avoided countries that had stricter extradition treaties with the US. When Swiss extradition failed due to faults in the US request he 'fled' to Poland, where he also is a citizen, that does not see his actions decades ago as being able to prosecute anymore based on a Polish time limit. Realistically, if he visits a less defensive country he might be extradited, which is exactly why he doesn't.

But considering Polanski's advanced age, all we can do from it is learn how not to do it next time. Hopefully...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
I have zero problems with Cosby's or Nassar's relatives claiming the lions share of the respective estates so they can maintain their way of life. If Cosby is wise he will not oppose this but will cooperate with giving his wife and kids as large a share as possible. He can't divest the lot though, the state argues on the accused's behalf to spare monies for claimants, and technically so the convicted has money to live on post release. Though the latter isnt a plausible consideration is Cosby's and Nassar's cases.

I think his family is going to do just fine, as Cosby assets are estimated to be worth at least around a 100 million dollars. Their continued defensive of him is pretty distasteful, especially the manner they are doing it in,

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No argument that the plea bargain renegement was incredibly damaging to the overall system. But in the end while Polanski remains technically innocent we all know he committed statutory rape, he himself never denied having sex. Polanski is far from the only case that we could call a botched trial, I mean just look at what happened after My Lai.

The My Lai massacre was different,it was deliberately mishandled because the US was under repeated criticism for excesses and warcrimes in Vietnam. Something had to be done, so one token hooch burning, out of many villages burned, was brought to public court and the defendants got derisory short sentences.

The trouble here is that you dont understand the plea bargaining system. Let me explain it to you, this way you will not only understand how badly the ball was dropped in Polanski's case, but why plea bargaining is BS litigation anyway.

You are driving a new car in America. somewhere along the way you are pulled over by police, possibly due to your driving or other reasons. The officer being thorough decides to look around your car, unwittingly you give him permission so the search is legal. During the search he finds drugs, well over the volume to be a trafficking felony rather than misdemeanour possession.
we will leave unanswered whether the drugs are yours. Perhaps you are a narcotics trafficker and this is your major new income stream, maybe they were in the car when you bought it at auction. Maybe a faithless passenger left them there so you were an unwitting mule of 'the product' on its journey across America.
Now in most western countries if they cannot prove trafficking they might try and prove possession, but in the USA they have plea bargaining. Prosecutors agree that securing a conviction for trafficking is unsafe so offer a plea bargain of reduction to possession via your defence attorney.
Now of you accept you are legally admitting to possession of a large volume of drugs, but you are only making this admission in relation to your sentencing, you are trading for a sentence, not being justly found guilty. So for example by admitting possession in a plea bargain a prosecutor cannot turn around and say that if you 'admit' the drugs were yours you should be tried on felony trafficking instead due to the volume of drugs found.
This is how plea bargaining works but also why it breaks down. You have zero admission of guilt as a trafficker, despite technical ownership of a large volume of drugs under a possession plea bargain. The admission applies strictly to the bargain made, the trade of legal agreement between the accused and the prosecuting authorities, and nothing else.

Now you see why a wrist-slap plea bargain for child rape makes no sense. Outside of serving the plea bargain, Polanski has made no legal admission of culpability. This explains why reneging of the plea bargain is a miscarriage of justice. It was effectively a bait and switch on Polanski, get him to admit to a serious crime under a wrist-slap plea bargain, so the culpability if linked to the plea bargain alone, then use is as free leverage for a full sentence. That alone would give rise for a compenent defence lawyer to make reasonable claim that Polanski cannot get fair justice in an American court.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The issue is that when he fled, Polanski actually committed a crime. I don't think France is a good representative of the case, seeing as how the French government openly supported Polanski for decades and France can decide not to extradite its own citizens to the US.

the French have more balls when it comes to standing up to its own citizens. the UK signed a one sided extradition treaty with the US under poodle Blair.

As for Polanski's flight, yes that was a crime, but it was a reaction to a breach in a plea bargain arrangement. Plea bargains are bad enough, but when one is subsequently ignored and based on the admission in the plea agreement the whole system falls apart. This is just the same as the hypothetical drug possession vs trafficking scenario.

There is only one reliable conclusion we can rely on from the Polanski case and that is that the legal team he employed in the US case was worth their fees. Excellent defence work that was, everything else went belly up but Polanski's lawyers were on the ball.

I fully understand how plea bargains work, hence why I said the renegement of it is/was incredibly damaging to the overall systems as you're undermining faith and trust in the legal system. I also fully understand that Polanski never made a legal admission. Neither of these two things are the point.

The point is that it is well known that Polanski raped a child, just because he didn't get convicted over it doesn't make it less true, hence me bringing up My Lai as another botched one. Just because those soldiers didn't get convicted doesn't mean they didn't massacre 400 civilians (also there we're no sentences, only a single sentence). Pretending he didn't do it because he didn't get convicted over it is just being obtuse. The main issue that comes up with extradition is how the US botched the plea deal and therefore it calls into question the wider case. Those cases are never about him actually having done it, just about if he should be handed over to the US system.

I think there are two reliable conclusions from this. Being wealthy gets you a long way in the US system and his legal team was worth the money.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I fully understand how plea bargains work, hence why I said the renegement of it is/was incredibly damaging to the overall systems as you're undermining faith and trust in the legal system. I also fully understand that Polanski never made a legal admission. Neither of these two things are the point.

Good.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The point is that it is well known that Polanski raped a child, just because he didn't get convicted over it doesn't make it less true, hence me bringing up My Lai as another botched one.

Innocent until proven guilty is the same principle for everyone, even if accused of taboo crimes. We do not get to say 'innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant is being accused of being a paedophile in the media then the ends justify the means'. I shouldn't have to explain why that would be a slippery slope.

We can say that if you made personal claim that Polanski is a child rapist, Polanski might have 'difficulty' launching a libel claim. But he isn't a de facto child rapist until a jury agrees after defence and prosecution have made their statements. Polanski will never return to America and the legal waters are way too muddied for that to happen elsewhere due to the mishandled plea bargain and consequent miscarriage of justice in the run up to his sentencing hearing.

 Orlanth wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty is the same principle for everyone, even if accused of taboo crimes. We do not get to say 'innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant is being accused of being a paedophile in the media then the ends justify the means'.

We do get to say "innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant writes an autobiography where he argues that the child he had sex with wasn't unresponsive and that she denied not liking what he was doing". He doesn't deny having sex with a 14 year old, he denies drugging a 14 year old to have sex with her while she was unconscious.

I shouldn't have to explain why that would be a slippery slope.

The vast majority of Dakka Dakka OT shouldn't have to explain you can label a man who wrote in his autobiography about how he had sex with a minor as a statutory rapist.

But he isn't a de facto child rapist until a jury agrees after defence and prosecution have made their statements. cing hearing.

He isn't a de jure child rapist until either a jury agrees or the plea agreement is accepted by a judge.

He is a de facto child rapist simply by the fact that he admitted to having sex with the child in his book.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The point is that it is well known that Polanski raped a child, just because he didn't get convicted over it doesn't make it less true, hence me bringing up My Lai as another botched one.

Innocent until proven guilty is the same principle for everyone, even if accused of taboo crimes. We do not get to say 'innocent until proven guilty unless the defendant is being accused of being a paedophile in the media then the ends justify the means'. I shouldn't have to explain why that would be a slippery slope.

We can say that if you made personal claim that Polanski is a child rapist, Polanski might have 'difficulty' launching a libel claim. But he isn't a de facto child rapist until a jury agrees after defence and prosecution have made their statements. Polanski will never return to America and the legal waters are way too muddied for that to happen elsewhere due to the mishandled plea bargain and consequent miscarriage of justice in the run up to his sentencing hearing.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard for punishment, not a societal one. Handling such standards in real life is bonkers because again, in that case a single man murdered 400 civilians in My Lai. Polanski never denied having sex, what he did would be called statutory rape, even though he did not legally admit to it. If you murder someone in broad daylight and they botch the conviction, that doesn't make you any less of a murderer.

He is exactly a de facto child rapist, what he isn't is a de jure child rapist.

Ok, semantic point on de facto vs de jure accepted.

Although technically he is also a de jure child rapist, since he's been convicted with only the sentencing pending.

 Orlanth wrote:
You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.

This is a really dishonest comparison. Polanski raped her, period. He admitted, outside of court, that he did it. The only question is whether he drugged her and did it by force, or if he "only" abused his position of power to coerce her into saying yes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.

This is a really dishonest comparison. Polanski raped her, period. He admitted, outside of court, that he did it. The only question is whether he drugged her and did it by force, or if he "only" abused his position of power to coerce her into saying yes.

Or even if she was super, super into him and pursued him for days, it's still a crime.

How is this still being argued? It doesn't matter if he was convicted or not. He has admitted to sleeping with a 13 year old. Sleeping with a 13 year old is rape. He is a rapist. Full stop. The case doesn't matter. The Judge doesn't matter. The jury doesn't matter. All that matters is the admission of guilt.

Polanski is a rapist, no matter how many times you try to handwave it away.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.

This is a really dishonest comparison. Polanski raped her, period. He admitted, outside of court, that he did it. The only question is whether he drugged her and did it by force, or if he "only" abused his position of power to coerce her into saying yes.

Peregrine, you should try to make an honest argument for a change.
Do this by leaving the comment you are quoting with its context so you don't have the temptation for a false narrative.

Do this and your hysteric claim of a 'dishonest comparison' melts away.

Tip: The context is about how plea bargain admissions have no value outside the plea bargain and are not common inferences.

You not liking the idea of plea bargains doesn’t invalidate them as real convictionsz

 Dreadwinter wrote:
How is this still being argued?

Because plea bargains a a legal oddity that has only passing resemblance to the truth in many cases. The very idea of a plea bargain is that neither the prosecution nor the defence gets what their goals are, but meet in a common ground, as their respective goals are guilt or innocence respectively, and the common ground is a lesser partly connected charge the facts of the matter are often compromised.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

It doesn't matter if he was convicted or not.

Actually it does if rule of law is to be of value.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

He has admitted to sleeping with a 13 year old. Sleeping with a 13 year old is rape. He is a rapist. Full stop..

Refer back to how plea bargaining works.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

The case doesn't matter. The Judge doesn't matter. The jury doesn't matter. All that matters is the ad mission of guilt.

First there was no jury, it never went that far AFAIK. The case does matter if civilisation means anything to you. Think of it like a heresy trial, the offence is so taboo that proof of guilt is no longer required. That never ends well.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Polanski is a rapist, no matter how many times you try to handwave it away.

Rape is fairly determined not by accusation but by convicted crime alone, Polanski is unconvicted, you might not like that but it remains the legal truth regardless. Get over it.

Justice, if it is to mean something requires that society protects even the individuals who appear to be abhorent to society. Justice has to favour the defence with burden of proof placed upon the state, if fair and balanced justice cannot be presented, for whatever reason the defendant walks. Justice has to protect everyone, not just people who are liked. The legal system had a fair shot at Polanski and fethed it up, the case against him is now tainted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
You not liking the idea of plea bargains doesn’t invalidate them as real convictionsz

There was no conviction.

They aren't actually real convictions in that they prove that someone actually did what they plead guilty to.

 d-usa wrote:
Although technically he is also a de jure child rapist, since he's been convicted with only the sentencing pending.

When the plea bargain was thrown away the plea linked admission was also discarded.

Get it into your head that plea bargain admissions are judicial compromises not flat statements of fact or judicial findings.

He didn't just admit it in the plea bargain. He openly admitted that he raped a 13 year old, he just whines bout how unfair it is that people want him punished.

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Although technically he is also a de jure child rapist, since he's been convicted with only the sentencing pending.

When the plea bargain was thrown away the plea linked admission was also discarded.

Get it into your head that plea bargain admissions are judicial compromises not flat statements of fact or judicial findings.

Holy wow. You are not getting this. He admitted to doing it outside of the plea bargain. He admitted to raping a child. You can still be a rapist even if you are not convicted.

Your whole "The law is everything!" argument is absurd and has no place in this world. Look at it this way. If you are found innocent of something, you cannot be tried for the same thing again even if you come out and say "hey I actually did this!" Guess what, admitting you did it still makes you a rapist. The only difference is you are not a convicted rapist, just a regular rapist. If you are going to go around attempting to teach people about law and plea bargains, you should probably understand them first. Polanski is a rapist. He admitted to being a rapist. He is not a convicted rapist. But he is an admitted rapist.

Now please, explain to me again how plea bargains somehow change this fact.

Accepting a plea bargain = accepting a conviction.

That’s how they work.

And his is still in effect, pending sentencing.

 d-usa wrote:
Accepting a plea bargain = accepting a conviction.

That’s how they work.

And his is still in effect, pending sentencing.

Putting aside the specific case and people involved - the law isn't everything, except when it is? You can't just say "accepting a plea bargain = accepting a conviction" without acknowledging the often grotesque power imbalance inherent in the "deal" by which plea bargains are made and accepted, nor without acknowledging how frequently they categorically are abused to imprison the innocent for the sake of crime statistics, not to mention the racial and socioeconomic components of their application.

Well, you can, but it's so stupendously intellectually dishonest it pretty much immediately invalidates any other point you attempt to make.

Polanski admitted to statutory rape publicly and without duress, and so regardless of his legal situation he is a statutory rapist and certainly shouldn't be excused that because he suffered a trauma himself, but using his admitted guilt to try and argue that plea bargaining as a practice is sound and they must be given equal weight to an actual trial conviction where evidence is heard and considered in a court of law is ridiculous.

Which is a different argument than what I am making.

Legally there is no different between pleading guilty or being found guilty. Both result in a conviction.

 d-usa wrote:
Which is a different argument than what I am making.

Legally there is no different between pleading guilty or being found guilty. Both result in a conviction.

This is true, but not as you understand it. Pleading guilty is the same as being found guilty, but Polanski did not plead guilty, he plea bargained.

Pled guilty = accepted the base premise of the prosecution's case as correct.
Plea bargain = made a deal outside the courtroom to accept certain charges in return for certain concessions.

Plea Bargain has two words.

Plea: the pleading guilty part.
Bargain: the part where you bargain about what you will be pleading guilty to.

Don’t let your sustain for the process of plea bargaining distract you that it’s still a guilty plea.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Although technically he is also a de jure child rapist, since he's been convicted with only the sentencing pending.

When the plea bargain was thrown away the plea linked admission was also discarded.

Get it into your head that plea bargain admissions are judicial compromises not flat statements of fact or judicial findings.

Holy wow. You are not getting this. He admitted to doing it outside of the plea bargain. He admitted to raping a child. You can still be a rapist even if you are not convicted.

Your whole "The law is everything!" argument is absurd and has no place in this world. Look at it this way. If you are found innocent of something, you cannot be tried for the same thing again even if you come out and say "hey I actually did this!" Guess what, admitting you did it still makes you a rapist. The only difference is you are not a convicted rapist, just a regular rapist. If you are going to go around attempting to teach people about law and plea bargains, you should probably understand them first. Polanski is a rapist. He admitted to being a rapist. He is not a convicted rapist. But he is an admitted rapist.

Now please, explain to me again how plea bargains somehow change this fact.

Because the label of rapist requires a criminal conviction. There is no way around that under law, the whole purpose of the law is that a conviction is required to punish, this protection is not earned by merit but is an inherent right and should remain such for the betterment of all. The best you can say is that you have reasonable cause to discriminate, in certain circumstances. You can fail Polanski on vetting and refuse him a position to work with children, but you can't force him to wear a tag or register as a sex offender.

 Orlanth wrote:
Because the label of rapist requires a criminal conviction.

No it doesn't. His public, willing, admission to committing an act of rape is sufficient to label him a rapist beyond any dispute. Polanski is a rapist, period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Peregrine, you should try to make an honest argument for a change.
Do this by leaving the comment you are quoting with its context so you don't have the temptation for a false narrative.

Do this and your hysteric claim of a 'dishonest comparison' melts away.

Tip: The context is about how plea bargain admissions have no value outside the plea bargain and are not common inferences.

The context doesn't save your case at all. You presented a hypothetical scenario where one would take a plea bargain, with a defendant who is innocent of the crime. It is dishonest to bring such an argument into this discussion, where the defendant is known beyond any possible dispute to be guilty of the crime. Put into the context of your other apologetics for a known child rapist it is hard to avoid getting the impression that you are presenting the idea that Polanski is innocent and only took the plea bargain out of fear of a much harsher sentence.

He has been criminally convicted. That’s what accepting a plea bargain does.

The only thing that hasn’t happened yet is sentencing, but the conviction stands.

 d-usa wrote:
Plea Bargain has two words.

Plea: the pleading guilty part.
Bargain: the part where you bargain about what you will be pleading guilty to.

Don’t let your sustain for the process of plea bargaining distract you that it’s still a guilty plea.

You are entirely incorrect, it is two words but one meaning, the plea and the bargain are two indivisible halves, you don't have one without the other. Often in fact in most cases the plea is a halfway between guilt of the crime the prosecutors are charging the accused with and innocence. So trafficking becomes possession, murder become manslaughter. In each of these case the plea is actually factually incorrect, you are pleading a lie and the prosecution is accepting that lie to speed up the judicial system. That is how the plea bargain system works. A hypothetical example was given earlier as to why it is unfair and dangerous to take a half a plea bargain and use that as leverage to assume guilt.
If you plea bargain and get the bargain you have under law accepted guilt on the lesser charge or agreed circumstances. If the bargain is rejected the plea goes with it, as the plea is often a mutually convenient lie in actuality it is unfair to assume it has any relevance outside of the plea arrangement.

 d-usa wrote:
He has been criminally convicted. That’s what accepting a plea bargain does.

The only thing that hasn’t happened yet is sentencing, but the conviction stands.

You can continue to spout that, but you will continue to be legally entirely wrong.
Criminal legal references and terminology is exacting, they have to be, they are what they are, they are not what you dream them to be.
Polanskli has never been criminally convicted of the child sex allegations.
Just because you don't like that, doest mean it is not true. Legal truth doesn't have to mold itself to conform to your personal opinions.

Wall of texts =/= being right.

Polanski has been convicted because he accepted he plea bargain, that phase is over and he is pending sentencing.

Just because you don’t like that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Legal truth doesn’t have to mold itself to conform to your personal opinions.

You don’t like plea bargains? That’s fine.
You think they are used to strong arm guilty pleas by initially overcharging people? I don’t disagree that this often happens.
Do valid complaints about how plea bargains are used change the legal facts of what happens when you plead guilty to a crime? No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again here is from way back in the day:

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/08/09/archives/polanski-guilty-plea-accepted-in-sex-case-district-attorney-says.html

Roman Polanski, the film director, pleaded guilty today in Superior Court here to one felony count of "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a 13-year old girl.
...
"I had sexual intercourse with a person not my wife, under the age of 18." He said he knew the girl was 13 at the time.