And my issue with this case is I don’t think for a second that’s what happened here. I think if Cosby had been poor this would not have made it to the supreme court. I think this “precedent” will not be applied by prosecutors to cases where the defendant does not have the resources to make a competent appeal. I think that if the crime had been murder, arson, armed robbery, or any non-sex violent crime - and again, possibly even the same crime if the defendant wasn’t famous - the outcome at the court would have been different (it still would have been overturned, but a retrial would be on the way).
I think the narrative that this was the logical or only outcome is bullshit that people are saying in reflexive deference to a system which is systemically unjust.
I’m not sure I’ve ever been accused of “reflexive deference” to the criminal justice system before now. That would probably come as a surprise to the prosecutors I fight with.
I represent a lot of people who have been accused of doing terrible things, most of whom are neither rich nor powerful nor famous. So their stories don’t make it into the news or get discussed in places like this, but I can tell you that decisions like this DO matter in the long run because the more we are willing to overlook prosecutorial misconduct so long as it sticks it to someone terrible like Cosby, the harder it is to ever hold the state responsible.
You may very well be right that a less powerful person may not have been able to get this appeal heard by the court. But I know for certain that the appellate defenders who work on behalf of indigent defendants would not have their jobs made easier had this decision gone the other way. You don’t have to take my word for this, by the way. If you’re curious about what actual appellate lawyers working on behalf of poor people think, you can look up their office in your state and send them an email. I guarantee that they’ll respond if you ask them, and you might be interested to hear their thoughts.
This outcome sucks. A rich and powerful person hurt a lot of people and paid very little price. But it sucks because Castor fucked up, intentionally or not, not because the court got this decision right.
YES! ABSOLUTLEY YES! We must protect the rights of those accused of rape. Or murder, or drunk driving, or arson, or child abuse, or terrorism. We must protect the rights of those accused of ANY crimes, full stop. That’s kind of a fundamental part of truly effective civil liberties from where I stand, but YMMV.
That’s why I also believe that those convicted of terrible crimes deserve to have their civil liberties protected. That means prisons should be safe, they should get health care and education, they should have access to drug treatment, and they should be treated with human dignity. I don’t think we should pick and choose which crimes should carry a removal of those rights, which is why I work as a public defender.
This seems to be the real sticking point here. I think that we can all agree that there was serious prosecutorial misconduct here. What I would like to know is: was there no other way to address this misconduct than to void the sentence and bar a retrial? Would it not suffice to void the sentence, allow a retrial and otherwise sanction the prosecutors who were involved in this travesty? I suppose what I am asking is: we all agree that everyone’s civil liberties should be protected, but should a civil liberties violation be a get out of jail free card for the person whose rights were so violated? Especially when there is other evidence, unrelated to the civil liberties violation, that could be used to prove guilt?
I mean you’re arguing that you are not bending to the system by saying there’s no need for critical examination of the levers in this cause caused by wealth, fame, and connections. And the best you can say is that the previous prosecution made an oopsie doodles and didn’t work to keep Cosby out of jail while getting the victim more than nothing.
Mix in Cosby’s lawyer declaring this a victory over the corrupt political motivations of the DA office, and this whole situation is a clear demonstration of the weakest points of the justice system and not its strengths. The system worked for the wrong reasons and the wrong person.
You’re simply wrong, so I am not going to argue with a straw man. I neither said nor implied any such thing. I am fully in support of all those things being examined and held up to public discussion, because my clients are the ones who benefit.
I have a vested interest in society being fully aware of all these factors in the criminal justice system. And the fix I want is for the rights to be BETTER protected for everyone, not for the state to be able to pick and choose which rights apply to which defendants.
I think this is a tricky part, and I understand where you’re coming from. There are two parts in play, I think. First, you can’t unring the bell for the testimony that Cosby provided under the non-prosecution agreement. All that stuff became public, and it’s arguable whether any future trial could possibly exclude it from the jury’s knowledge. But I agree that’s a debatable conclusion and see where someone might feel otherwise.
Second, on more of a bigger-picture scale, personally I’m not in favor of the state getting do-overs in criminal trials very often. If a cop lies, if a prosecutor reneges on a deal, or there is some other fundamental misconduct by the state, I think it erodes the system to let the state just say oopsie and get another bite at the apple. A lot of judges and prosecutors disagree with me about that one. I am of the opinion that it provides a perverse incentive to cops and prosecutors to skirt the line and cross it, knowing that they’ll just get a do-over if they get caught.
Several posters on this thread seem to be suggesting that the best outcome of this event would be for non-rich, non-celebrity accused to get the same protections against prosecutorial lying that Cosby did.
They are - what’s the word?- ah! that’s it! They are right.
The answer, of course, is yes: it will ruin the rest of your life in so many ways.
Oh, wait, that’s for the victim. The rapist ALMOST ALWAYS gets to keep raping as long as they want. No consequences there. So no, for them, it’s clearly not a crime in our society.
Adding to this post, as the thread is currently throttled:
This entire topic is thoroughly depressing and disheartening, even the valid points which have been made.
It’s all well and good to glibly wax episodic about how the system should work in a fair and equitable manner for all regardless to social stature; but for those of us living in a reality which is the exact opposite of that ideal, it’s basically just adding salt to an already festering wound.
How about when a wealthy celebrity gets away with abusing at least 60 women due mostly to absurd statute of limitations? Cosby has been gaming the system as much or more than the prosecutors did.
I’m not sure if you read what I wrote above, but I stand by it:
It’s unjust that this rapist fuck hurt so many people and ultimately paid so little in comparison to the harm he caused his victims. It’s also true that this was almost certainly the correct decision from the appellate court, and letting prosecutors renege on deals like this would (further) erode our system of justice.
It’s also fair to recognize and be furious that the justice system far too often fails the victims of sexual assault while also far too often over-zealously prosecutes the most vulnerable people in society while giving the rich and powerful passes. All this stuff is true, and recognizing one slice of it doesn’t require denying or even minimizing any other slice.
