The Cosby Scandal

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Waterfall said:
Maybe put them on an iceberg and float them off to sea?
Click to expand...

My wife often points out in discussions of our prison system vs. China's that while we may frown on "prison labour", putting prisoners (esp. lifers and other long timers) in a facility where they have a job will give them some skills and purpose rather than them simply rotting away in prison. The problem I have with the Chinese system is the use of political prisoners as slave labour. If it was just convicted criminals and they were getting some kind of pay (maybe held in trust until their release or sent out to their families, perhaps with some held back for victim compensation), I have no issue with prison labour per se.
 
Mendalla said:
My wife often points out in discussions of our prison system vs. China's that while we may frown on "prison labour", putting prisoners (esp. lifers and other long timers) in a facility where they have a job will give them some skills and purpose rather than them simply rotting away in prison. The problem I have with the Chinese system is the use of political prisoners as slave labour. If it was just convicted criminals and they were getting some kind of pay (maybe held in trust until their release or sent out to their families, perhaps with some held back for victim compensation), I have no issue with prison labour per se.
Click to expand...
I was being facetious.;)
But from the few books that I have read about it, there are many things that I do admire about the Indian Justice System. (not the iceberg thingy)
 
Mendalla said:
The problem in Cosby's case is that while he is not sexually assaulting women anymore (that we know of) he has used his legal and financial muscle against the women who are speaking out against him. That is re-victimizing. Should he get jail time? Tough call. But something definitely needs to be done to shut him down for good and ensure the women he victimized cannot be re-victimized. Reconciliation is not the primary goal here, protecting the women is. I have no sympathy for the guy whatsoever based on what has happened so far and I highly doubt that a 78 year-old who has been getting away with it for this long can be rehabilitated in any meaningful way before he passes on.

House arrest with 24 hour monitoring would be my suggested alternative to jail. Since the local law specifies 5-10 years jail, then I'd say the same for the house arrest. Yes, that probably ends his career. He's likely got enough socked away to survive and may still be getting residuals from The Cosby Show and royalties from his recordings and videos so I don't see that as a problem.

A permanent restraining order preventing him or his team from contacting any of the women should be part of it, too, with jail as the "stick" to ensure he follows it.

He can't trusted to do any kind of community service (okay, maybe to give charity shows but that's about it) but given that he is still loaded with cash, I'd suggest a court-ordered multi-million dollar payout to groups supporting abused women and campaigning against sexual assault.

IOW, probation with a very, very tight leash. And I do mean VERY. One slip and he's back in court tight.

All, of course, assuming he is found guilty.
Click to expand...


My answer above was a general answer about punishment.
In the specific case involving Crosby I agree that you have come up with a good suggestion. It involves prevention ( restricted movement, and no contact with any of the women), and a payout to groups campaigning against sexual assault (which should help in prevention of similar cases happening now or in the future).
 
When the news [=] about Cosby started breaking, I found it very difficult to believe. I always liked Cosby's gentle humor. Always enjoyed his acting.

That said, he needs rehabilitation. Reform. Redemption.
 
I think punishment in general does have another purpose - a deterrent. It shows that as a society we do not think such actions are acceptable and if we do catch people doing such a thing there are consequences.
When high profile cases do not result in the offender being punished if it has been determined they are guilty it's basically saying ah, it's not a big deal they did this.
 
ChemGal said:
I think punishment in general does have another purpose - a deterrent. It shows that as a society we do not think such actions are acceptable and if we do catch people doing such a thing there are consequences.
When high profile cases do not result in the offender being punished if it has been determined they are guilty it's basically saying ah, it's not a big deal they did this.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced the deterrent effect really exists, though. If it worked as advertised, the murder rate in the US should be much lower given that in many states first degree murder means a possible trip to the execution system of choice or true life imprisonment (not "life" meaning parole after 25 years as here). Harsher systems should translate to lower crime rates if deterrent effect holds and that just isn't always so. China has a very low crime rate and a harsh system but they also have very strong restrictions on guns, drugs, etc. and much more social control than our governments do so I'm not sure that there is a relationship even there.

In the absence of a provable deterrent effect, the primary role of the system becomes protection (of victims and citizens in general) and restitution (to both victims and society).

That said, you are correct in your last sentence. Protection and restitution are only effective if all criminals are equally subject to them. If someone like Cosby gets off easy because of money and status, then the system has failed. He should be held to the same standards of guilt and get the same sentence as a poor kid from the streets who committed the same crime (drugging a woman to get non-consensual sex) would get. If we think that sentence is too harsh for Cosby then it's too harsh for the poor kid, too, and we need to take a look at the law, not go easy on Cosby.
 
For people that say god has called them to do atrocities ... shouldn't they be returned to their director to give reports?

This could leave a'hole in the Canan ... or something loose in the story ... a plot or conspiracy as theo*sis?

With power like theos sis, would she be a beut ... just moor booty ... as seen from the bottom end ... just another bit of ab 'AUM'r as a leader? The forst wave hitz with a shock ...
 
Consequences and punishment are not the same thing. Of course there should be, and usually are, consequences for everything we do, good or bad. The consequences might be direct - you got drunk and wrecked your new car - now the insurance company refuses to make a settlement, and the city is charging you for damage to the guard rail. You were caught speeding, you loose your driving privileges. You lie to your mother or steal from your grandmother and you lose their trust and have to make restitution.

Yes, Crosby should have to face consequences for his crimes. Loss of respect, prestige, and money (paying restitution) are consequences. Limitations placed on his freedom, are preventive. Spending the rest of his life in prison seems to me to be punishment and I don't think it will accomplish anything.

I also think that a close examination of the lives of many entertainers, sports figures, politicians, etc. from Crosby's time, would reveal that he was acting pretty much like others in his culture. (I've heard some pretty damning things said about the Kennedys, Frank Sinatra, and a few others.)
More effort needs to go into education and changing the culture that turns a blind eye if someone is rich and powerful enough.
 
Mendalla said:
I'm not convinced the deterrent effect really exists, though. If it worked as advertised, the murder rate in the US should be much lower given that in many states first degree murder means a possible trip to the execution system of choice or true life imprisonment (not "life" meaning parole after 25 years as here). Harsher systems should translate to lower crime rates if deterrent effect holds and that just isn't always so. China has a very low crime rate and a harsh system but they also have very strong restrictions on guns, drugs, etc. and much more social control than our governments do so I'm not sure that there is a relationship even there.

In the absence of a provable deterrent effect, the primary role of the system becomes protection (of victims and citizens in general) and restitution (to both victims and society).

That said, you are correct in your last sentence. Protection and restitution are only effective if all criminals are equally subject to them. If someone like Cosby gets off easy because of money and status, then the system has failed. He should be held to the same standards of guilt and get the same sentence as a poor kid from the streets who committed the same crime (drugging a woman to get non-consensual sex) would get. If we think that sentence is too harsh for Cosby then it's too harsh for the poor kid, too, and we need to take a look at the law, not go easy on Cosby.
Click to expand...
I think it does work, to an extent. Not simply as just punishment avoidance, but the societal acceptance comes into play with that too.
 
ChemGal said:
I think punishment in general does have another purpose - a deterrent. It shows that as a society we do not think such actions are acceptable and if we do catch people doing such a thing there are consequences.
When high profile cases do not result in the offender being punished if it has been determined they are guilty it's basically saying ah, it's not a big deal they did this.
Click to expand...

That same general principle, however, applies to an argument oft made for capital punishment - that its existence is a deterrent to murder. Since deterrence clearly does not work in the extreme, I'm not sure why it would apply in general.

I don't think punishment is ever a deterrent. It is a license to make damned sure one doesn't get caught, to most of humanity. Do you ever remember getting a punishment that felt entirely deserved to you? Did it make a permanent change to your voluntary, internal reaction to a situation?

I believe in personal restoration. If I have done anything to hurt anyone else, I would like them to tell me about it (instead of me assuming it). I think "government" - the act of governing a society - has a role to play in determining guidelines for what makes it easier for people to live in harmony in close proximity, and the development of best practices and processes for personal restoration whenever there is verifiable evidence of harm.
 
The awareness that my actions have consequences is a deterent.
Thinking of another drink...positive I could drive the short distance home, but, not willing to risk the punishment of a 23hr suspension.
Considering not paying that bill, the consequences of having my phone cut off is a deterrent.
Thinking of telling my manager exactly where to shove the job or her behaviour ...likely going to have some payback..so wait until can express concerns logically, unemotially or just let them go.

The punishment has to be logical, and when the action is a criminal one, then, yup, the punishment could involve jail time.

Now, is it everyone, probably not.
But, definitely the possibility of logical consequences kicks in when my gut wants me to do something else.
 
One thing that seems so strange about this case to me

Bill Cosby , is his prime, was a very talented, sexy, good looking, cool guy. I totally get the idea that he would be a tom cat though i feel for his wife

What seems so odd is that he was drugging people. I mean , surely there would have been many women who would sleep with him. Why the drugs?
 
Because with outthe durgs he is just a sleezy guy, sleeping with anyone who comes by, wife be dammed.

So the drugs are an integral part of the case. As he "drugging" them or was he sharing his drugs. Big difference
 
I'm not thinking it's 'sharing' when the women claim it's 'drugging'. There's a pretty clear difference to me.

I think we have someone with a strong sense of entitlement due to gender and status, and a very unclear concept of consent, still a bit of a problem, particularly, it seems, among males.
 
BetteTheRed said:
I'm not thinking it's 'sharing' when the women claim it's 'drugging'. There's a pretty clear difference to me.
Click to expand...
BetteTheRed said:
I think we have someone with a strong sense of entitlement due to gender and status, and a very unclear concept of consent, still a bit of a problem, particularly, it seems, among males.
Click to expand...

OTOH, if the defence can build a case that the women took the drugs voluntarily and knew what was coming, they may be able to convince the jury that it was all consensual and put the whole business into "reasonable doubt" territory. As in the OJ case, a good lawyer may be able to finesse this one into a "not guilty" which, combined with the strong US avoidance of double jeopardy, could save Cosby's bacon, though it would not stop charges from being laid in other cases, just bring this one to an end.

I am not saying that that is right or how it should end, but it is how the defence is likely to play it.
 
Hi Bette

I am not unclear about the difference between sharing and being drugged

I am just wondering which is correct for this case

I have no doubt he will say he was "sharing drugs. It would certainly be an obvious defense. Particulary if they can show the woman used drugs or brought them to the party. The question i guess is how will she prove she was "drugged" against her will

Re consent , it could be an interesting case. If you willingly took drugs, in a senario that implied "we are getting stoned and then having sex" can you actually give consent? And is the consent you gave when you willingly got stoned together enough consent for sex? Can you change your mind when you are stoned?

I am not clear about US law at all. I know we have had a few recent cases about women too drunk to be giving consent to actual sex act
 
The 'sharing' of drugs implies that both get equally incompetent. If a guy and I decide to do acid together, or magic mushrooms, for an example, if we'd taken approximately equal dosages, relative to body weight, that's "mutual drugging" (although there are individual tolerances and body chemistries to be considered, I suppose). That's about it. If I have a bottle of tylenol in my purse, does that imply that I'd voluntarily take the whole bottle in one evening? Does the presence of a drug among your belongings imply an intent to consume?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top