A thought on dealing with cases like Cosby

[Jolly_Penguin]

What you don't seem to understand is that what I'm proposing is an alternative to being too scared to speak up. You keep trying to treat it as a replacement for an ordinary rape report.

The problem is that it could be either, and we don't know which it will be. It isn't inconceivable for a victim who would have come forward unsealed with great discomfort, to take the much more comfortable option of waiting to come forward with others, and in doing so that is one report that would have been in the open, not in the open.

Of course, it could also be a report from a victim that would otherwise not come forward at all (a great way to integrate this would be to offer it on an anonymous tip line rather than advertise it generally). A system like this really would have caught a Cosby-type, with 60 victims (that we know of) before anybody came forward openly.

There are both positives and negatives to a system like this.

 

[laughing dog]

Sadly, yes, they often are. It isn't supposed to be that way. Sentencing is supposed to be about deterrence, protection of the public in the future, and reformation. Vengeance is not supposed to be part of it.

Sorry, but retribution has always been part of sentencing. We don't live in an ideal world.

 

[Arctish]

What you don't seem to understand is that what I'm proposing is an alternative to being too scared to speak up. You keep trying to treat it as a replacement for an ordinary rape report.

The problem is that it could be either, and we don't know which it will be. It isn't inconceivable for a victim who would have come forward unsealed with great discomfort, to take the much more comfortable option of waiting to come forward with others, and in doing so that is one report that would have been in the open, not in the open.

Of course, it could also be a report from a victim that would otherwise not come forward at all (a great way to integrate this would be to offer it on an anonymous tip line rather than advertise it generally). A system like this really would have caught a Cosby-type, with 60 victims (that we know of) before anybody came forward openly.

There are both positives and negatives to a system like this.

There an additional problem, though.

Here's the OP identifying the problem the proposal is supposed to address:

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Loren's suggestion would supposedly make the reports more credible because the people who made them would not have been 'jumping on the bandwagon'. However, there's no way to tell what, if any, 'personal reasons' they might have had for making the reports. IOW, people who are inclined to disbelieve women reporting rapes because they think a sizable number of them are lying, will be even more suspicious of a women who doesn't want her report investigated immediately. I'm willing to bet if we actually had such a system in place, we'd see a couple of posters here decrying it for making it so easy for women to falsely accuse men of rape.

Hidden rape reports that no one sees won't help stop serial rapists like those Catholic priests or Jimmy Savile or Bill Cosby or anyone else like them. It won't make the reports of victims more credible. It won't increase the chances of getting a conviction even with multiple victims. The proposal calls for no investigation, no preservation of evidence, no interviews with potential witnesses while their memories are still fresh. It's just a list unsupported allegations that will be released en masse after an unspecified tipping point has been reached.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sadly, yes, they often are. It isn't supposed to be that way. Sentencing is supposed to be about deterrence, protection of the public in the future, and reformation. Vengeance is not supposed to be part of it.

Sorry, but retribution has always been part of sentencing. We don't live in an ideal world.

What part of "supposed to be" don't you understand? And why are you constantly looking to give up on progress, saying oh no we cant fix things, we don't live in an ideal world?

Did I say retribution hasn't always seaped into sentencing here and there? Did I way we live in an ideal world? No, I did not.

Retribution was once the entirety of it, as groups fought in blood feuds. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, and you kill my brother so I kill your sister, etc. We have improved since then and have created laws and better ideals for justice.

Toni was bemoaning the stmpathy for the victim wasn't part of a sentence handed down. It shouldn't be. That isn't the proper purpose of sentencing, as perhaps you agree since you said your stuff about an ideal world.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Loren's suggestion would supposedly make the reports more credible because the people who made them would not have been 'jumping on the bandwagon'.

I don't think that's as big a factor as Loren does, but while we are at it we can add the other small factor of people creating false memories from the news reports, the same way we saw UFO sightings and abduction stories increase after the first big sci fi movies came out.

However, there's no way to tell what, if any, 'personal reasons' they might have had for making the reports. IOW, people who are inclined to disbelieve women reporting rapes because they think a sizable number of them are lying, will be even more suspicious of a women who doesn't want her report investigated immediately.

Huh? Why? I don't follow your logic here at all. If they are out to screw over somebody why would they not want their story all over the place and ruining him in both courts of law and courts of public opinion? Mere allegations can ruin people, but those allegations have to be heard to do the job. If they are sealed and may never be unsealed, what's the point?

I'm willing to bet if we actually had such a system in place, we'd see a couple of posters here decrying it for making it so easy for women to falsely accuse men of rape.

I don't see what their arguments would be, but sure, I wouldn't put it past this forum for somebody to argue nonsense.

Hidden rape reports that no one sees won't help stop serial rapists like those Catholic priests or Jimmy Savile or Bill Cosby or anyone else like them.

The whole point is that they won't be hidden. As it happened with Cosby, they stayed hidden in that they were not made, until after the 60th victim. With sealed reports being unsealed at x=1, 2, 5, 20, 40, or even 59, he would have been caught earlier. Why don't you agree?

won't make the reports of victims more credible.

I don't know to what extent but yes, it will make them more credible, and it will also make their stories less prone to changing unintentionally because the reports will be closer in time to the events.

 

[laughing dog]

What part of "supposed to be" don't you understand? ...

"Supposed to be" can reasonably be interpreted to mean to occur
1) in ideal world but not in the current world, or
2) now, but something is preventing it.

Thank you clarifying you refer to the former. Since that requires a large majority of people to have the equivalent of a religious conversion to your values, I think it is pretty much pointless to discuss it .

Toni was bemoaning the stmpathy for the victim wasn't part of a sentence handed down. It shouldn't be. That isn't the proper purpose of sentencing, as perhaps you agree since you said your stuff about an ideal world.

I said I don't live in an ideal world, so no I don't agree. And, in my ideal world ,the effect on the victim should be part of the sentencing criterion.

 

[Arctish]

I don't think that's as big a factor as Loren does, but while we are at it we can add the other small factor of people creating false memories from the news reports, the same way we saw UFO sightings and abduction stories increase after the first big sci fi movies came out.

However, there's no way to tell what, if any, 'personal reasons' they might have had for making the reports. IOW, people who are inclined to disbelieve women reporting rapes because they think a sizable number of them are lying, will be even more suspicious of a women who doesn't want her report investigated immediately.

Huh? Why? I don't follow your logic here at all. If they are out to screw over somebody why would they not want their story all over the place and ruining him in both courts of law and courts of public opinion? Mere allegations can ruin people, but those allegations have to be heard to do the job. If they are sealed and may never be unsealed, what's the point?

I'm not saying their suspicions are logical. I'm saying their suspicions already exist.

People who think women lie about rape are going to be suspicious of women don't want an investigation into their reports of being raped. And in the case of a couple of posters we have here, calling it 'suspicion' is an understatement. I have no doubt that if such a system existed they'd be telling us all about lying bitches who meet up at campus parties and conspire to destroy an innocent man's reputation by filing sealed reports until they recruit enough ex-girlfriends to trigger an onslaught.

I'm willing to bet if we actually had such a system in place, we'd see a couple of posters here decrying it for making it so easy for women to falsely accuse men of rape.

I don't see what their arguments would be, but sure, I wouldn't put it past this forum for somebody to argue nonsense.

Hidden rape reports that no one sees won't help stop serial rapists like those Catholic priests or Jimmy Savile or Bill Cosby or anyone else like them.

The whole point is that they won't be hidden. As it happened with Cosby, they stayed hidden in that they were not made, until after the 60th victim. With sealed reports being unsealed at x=1, 2, 5, 20, 40, or even 59, he would have been caught earlier. Why don't you agree?

Because Cosby was stopped by women who didn't have their reports sealed.

Women had been reporting his actions to the police since the 1960s. There were plenty of accusations on record but not enough evidence to take him to trial. That's what comedian Hannibal Buress was talking about when he made his remarks about Cosby, and it was Buress' comments that brought attention to Cosby's almost 50 year run of reported sexual assaults.

The key evidence against Cosby came from Andrea Constand's civil suit. Not only did he admit to assaulting her, he admitted to having sex with drugged and drunken teenagers, why he bought so many Quaaludes, etc. Had Constand simply made a sealed accusation like Loren is suggesting, Cosby would most likely still be free to drug and rape anyone he could lure into his living room.

won't make the reports of victims more credible.

I don't know to what extent but yes, it will make them more credible, and it will also make their stories less prone to changing unintentionally because the reports will be closer in time to the events.

If that's what you think lends credibility to their reports then why not just suggest victims write about it in their diaries? Why create a bureaucracy that exists solely to keep reports of crimes hidden from view?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you don't seem to understand is that what I'm proposing is an alternative to being too scared to speak up. You keep trying to treat it as a replacement for an ordinary rape report.

What you don't seem to understand is that in some cases it may very well be a replacement for an ordinary rape report. Just like you don't seem to understand that police have more options than threatening and bullying a victim into recanting if they do not believe the allegation or victim is strong enough to survive a court trial.

If she's willing to make a rape report now why would she go with the sealed option if it were available?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hidden rape reports that no one sees won't help stop serial rapists like those Catholic priests or Jimmy Savile or Bill Cosby or anyone else like them. It won't make the reports of victims more credible. It won't increase the chances of getting a conviction even with multiple victims. The proposal calls for no investigation, no preservation of evidence, no interviews with potential witnesses while their memories are still fresh. It's just a list unsupported allegations that will be released en masse after an unspecified tipping point has been reached.

Which would certainly be long before the 60+ (we don't know how many women never came forward) that it took before anyone came forward about Cosby.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think that's as big a factor as Loren does, but while we are at it we can add the other small factor of people creating false memories from the news reports, the same way we saw UFO sightings and abduction stories increase after the first big sci fi movies came out.

That's part of what I'm thinking about. High profile crimes cause nutters to descend on the police. Amazingly, it even gets nutters confessing to having committed the crime.

won't make the reports of victims more credible.

I don't know to what extent but yes, it will make them more credible, and it will also make their stories less prone to changing unintentionally because the reports will be closer in time to the events.

Multiple independent testimony of what happened is much more credible than a single person making such testimony. If 5 women unaware of each other (and not coached by some third party, or following some high profile case that's been in the news) describe the same sort of incident the odds they are all making it up are minuscule.

 

[laughing dog]

What you don't seem to understand is that what I'm proposing is an alternative to being too scared to speak up. You keep trying to treat it as a replacement for an ordinary rape report.

What you don't seem to understand is that in some cases it may very well be a replacement for an ordinary rape report. Just like you don't seem to understand that police have more options than threatening and bullying a victim into recanting if they do not believe the allegation or victim is strong enough to survive a court trial.

If she's willing to make a rape report now why would she go with the sealed option if it were available?

I've already explained this earlier. Suppose a victim is wavering about what to do. Under the current system, he/she may report because at least it is on the record. Under proposal, the victim has a 3rd option - a sealed report which the victim may choose in order to avoid publicity So, it is possible that under your proposal an otherwise open allegation will become a sealed one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have no doubt that if such a system existed they'd be telling us all about lying bitches who meet up at campus parties and conspire to destroy an innocent man's reputation by filing sealed reports until they recruit enough ex-girlfriends to trigger an onslaught.

That's incoherent. If they were out to ruin the guy, why seal reports? Why does sealing reports hurt him moreso? If they are recruiting some conspired onslaught, why wouldn't they just bring that onslaught right now and unsealed to attack him immediately?

If that's what you think lends credibility to their reports then why not just suggest victims write about it in their diaries? Why create a bureaucracy that exists solely to keep reports of crimes hidden from view?

Is it a system that keeps their experiences hidden from view? Or is it a system that encourages their experiences to be viewed? That's the question. Your answer has no more evidence than Loren's answer, and it will be different in different contexts.Why am I alone in seeing both sides of this? Loren isn't seeing your side either.

- - - Updated - - -

Multiple independent testimony of what happened is much more credible than a single person making such testimony. If 5 women unaware of each other (and not coached by some third party, or following some high profile case that's been in the news) describe the same sort of incident the odds they are all making it up are minuscule.

That is a good point that has yet to be addressed by your critics.

 

[Arctish]

That's incoherent. If they were out to ruin the guy, why seal reports? Why does sealing reports hurt him moreso? If they are recruiting some conspired onslaught, why wouldn't they just bring that onslaught right now and unsealed to attack him immediately?

A lot of the misogynist arguments that get posted here are incoherent, if not outright paranoid. I based this scenario on an actual argument that was made by one of our resident anti-feminists. He was outraged to discover that 2 accusers of a particular man he was defending had met at a campus party and started comparing their experiences. That conversation resulted in them both filing complaints of sexual assault against him. They were later joined by 2 other accusers who said they'd had similar experiences. I'm casting that case as I think he would if Loren's system was in place. I believe that he would be outraged at

1) women getting together and encouraging each other to file reports against a guy,
2) their making sealed complaints that aren't investigated and therefore aren't subject to any sort of scrutiny,
3) their having the opportunity to find more like-minded individuals to add to the pile-on,
4) the guy being unaware of the sealed reports and therefore unable to prepare a defense,
5) and the women having the power to decide exactly when they want the reports released, en masse, to totally f**k over the hapless guy who never saw it coming

Is it a system that keeps their experiences hidden from view? Or is it a system that encourages their experiences to be viewed? That's the question. Your answer has no more evidence than Loren's answer, and it will be different in different contexts.Why am I alone in seeing both sides of this? Loren isn't seeing your side either.

- - - Updated - - -

Multiple independent testimony of what happened is much more credible than a single person making such testimony. If 5 women unaware of each other (and not coached by some third party, or following some high profile case that's been in the news) describe the same sort of incident the odds they are all making it up are minuscule.

That is a good point that has yet to be addressed by your critics.

I don't know why you're making such a point about the need for independent reports when independent reports are what led to the Cosby case, the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, the Savile case, and the case against Jerry Sandusky. Victims came forward independently and made their reports to the authorities. Eventually someone noticed the pattern and/or the attempts to keep the reports under wraps failed. The reports caught the public's attention, old cases were reopened or new investigations started, additional victims came forward, and the scandals grew exponentially.

Andrea Constand had 13 other alleged victims listed as potential witnesses in her civil case against Cosby in 2004. People scarcely noticed back then. But when Burrell started taking about it and both Netflix and NBC cancelled plans to create a new Cosby show, people suddenly noticed all those independent reports dating from the 1960s. Just like they suddenly noticed all the complaints against Savile, Sandusky, and Boston area priests.

We weren't lacking independent reports in the Cosby case. What we needed was careful and conscientious investigation of the reports already on file.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I believe that he would be outraged at

2) their making sealed complaints that aren't investigated and therefore aren't subject to any sort of scrutiny,

You mean not subject to any sort of investigation and not hurting him in any way? If they are kept sealed, nobody sees them. What are you saying this imagined misogynist is saying here?

3) their having the opportunity to find more like-minded individuals to add to the pile-on,

Why don't they have that opportunity anyway? How does sealing their reports give them more of this opportunity?

4) the guy being unaware of the sealed reports and therefore unable to prepare a defense,

That's a fair argument. But as you've noted, there is nothing stopping people from keeping notes. This isn't so different, except that that they trigger each other to come forward once there are a set number of them.

5) and the women having the power to decide exactly when they want the reports released, en masse, to totally f**k over the hapless guy who never saw it coming

Again, why wouldn't they have that anyway? If they want to time their conspired attack on him, they can do that right now without this.

I don't know why you're making such a point about the need for independent reports when independent reports are what led to the Cosby case, the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, the Savile case, and the case against Jerry Sandusky. Victims came forward independently and made their reports to the authorities. Eventually someone noticed the pattern and/or the attempts to keep the reports under wraps failed. Additional victims came forward and the scandals grew exponentially. Sure, the sheer number of additional victims was breathtaking but that's not what started the scandals or why those cases ended with convictions.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Loren on this point? I can't tell from the above text. You seem to be making his point for him.

 

[Arctish]

You mean not subject to any sort of investigation and not hurting him in any way? If they are kept sealed, nobody sees them. What are you saying this imagined misogynist is saying here?

I think you know whose posts I'm thinking about. I think you know how he would react to secret files full of uninvestigated claims of rape being used to unleash a flood of accusations on an unwitting man.

I think perhaps you don't realize that this is one of those rare places where he, laughing dog, and I find common ground. Loren's proposal is a civil liberties nightmare.

Why don't they have that opportunity anyway? How does sealing their reports give them more of this opportunity?

4) the guy being unaware of the sealed reports and therefore unable to prepare a defense,

That's a fair argument. But as you've noted, there is nothing stopping people from keeping notes. This isn't so different, except that that they trigger each other to come forward once there are a set number of them.

5) and the women having the power to decide exactly when they want the reports released, en masse, to totally f**k over the hapless guy who never saw it coming

Again, why wouldn't they have that anyway? If they want to time their conspired attack on him, they can do that right now without this.

I don't know why you're making such a point about the need for independent reports when independent reports are what led to the Cosby case, the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, the Savile case, and the case against Jerry Sandusky. Victims came forward independently and made their reports to the authorities. Eventually someone noticed the pattern and/or the attempts to keep the reports under wraps failed. Additional victims came forward and the scandals grew exponentially. Sure, the sheer number of additional victims was breathtaking but that's not what started the scandals or why those cases ended with convictions.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Loren on this point? I can't tell from the above text. You seem to be making his point for him.

I agree that multiple independent testimonies are more convincing than the testimony of one individual, provided they have been investigated and found to be credible.

I disagree that the collection of uninvestigated claims Loren proposes fits that bill. I disagree that a pile of uninvestigated claims moldering away in secret is of any use whatsoever in bringing a rapist to justice or deterring him from committing more rapes. And I disagree that there was a lack of independent testimony in the Cosby case.

Most people only noticed the allegations against Cosby after Netflix and NBC cancelled their plans for another Cosby show. But they were there in public view for years. The additional 45 or so reports following the cancellation helped convince fans there something of substance to the claims, but those weren't what led to Cosby's fall from grace.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wow. This thread.

Loren's suggestion gets my liberal going. I wonder if it's unconstitutional. Secret files on someone. What about speedy trial and this opens the door later to claims by defense that there's no due process since they could not gather timely evidence to counter the other evidence collected on them in secret. And of course keeping evidence in a good state long-term also complicates these issues of the defendants' rights.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think you know whose posts I'm thinking about.

I don't. Why not name him so he can respond?

I think you know how he would react to secret files full of uninvestigated claims of rape being used to unleash a flood of accusations on an unwitting man.

As I wrote above, I don't put it past people on this board to be irrational or incoherent, but this would be in the extreme, since the same flood of accusations would be far more damaging unsealed. Sealed files are not seen by anybody. Recently unsealed files that were not investigated when the report was fresh and lack of immediate investigation when it happened would be less damaging, not more damaging, to the accused. You pointed that out above yourself.

I think perhaps you don't realize that this is one of those rare places where he, laughing dog, and I find common ground.

Ok, I did not see that coming. LOL I could only see laughing dog make the above arguments if somebody had said the opposite or if Toni had said the above (which she wouldn't) and he was rushing to white knight for her.

I agree that multiple independent testimonies are more convincing than the testimony of one individual, provided they have been investigated and found to be credible.

Ah ok. For some reason I thought you had been saying the opposite previously. I misread.

I disagree that the collection of uninvestigated claims Loren proposes fits that bill. I disagree that a pile of uninvestigated claims moldering away in secret is of any use whatsoever in bringing a rapist to justice or deterring him from committing more rapes. And I disagree that there was a lack of independent testimony in the Cosby case.

I agree with you that the reports are useless if they just sit in secret and never get investigated. But the point is that they wouldn't be. They would be investigated after they are unsealed. Not as good as being investigated immediately, but if the complainant didn't have the choice to seal then there may be no report and investigation at all. That's the trade off here. And not allowing the sealed reports is taking an option away from the complainant. I know that's obvious, but it needs to be underscored, as many here arguing against a system like this can usually be found to be arguing in favour of rape victims rather than against them.

As for whether there was independent testimony in the Cosby case, I don't see why that matters here. More and sooner would still be better, right? Also, better resources, better training, less bias and corruption and laziness of police and more and more thorough investigation by them is not mutually exclusive with the offering of sealed reports to those not coming forward otherwise. If it takes public outcry for rapes to be investigated, then you've got a whole other level of problem that should also be addressed. If a guy has to lose in the court of public opinion to be tried in the court of law, that's a broken justice system in many ways.

 

[laughing dog]

Sealed files are not seen by anybody. Recently unsealed files that were not investigated when the report was fresh and lack of immediate investigation when it happened would be less damaging, not more damaging, to the accused.

Exactly, they appear more like character assassination because there is less evidence associated with them by design.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sealed files are not seen by anybody. Recently unsealed files that were not investigated when the report was fresh and lack of immediate investigation when it happened would be less damaging, not more damaging, to the accused.

Exactly, they appear more like character assassination because there is less evidence associated with them by design.

And with less evidence, there is less of a case. Anybody can make a complaint with zero evidence unsealed. This changes nothing in that regard.

I wonder if it's unconstitutional. Secret files on someone. What about speedy trial and this opens the door later to claims by defense that there's no due process since they could not gather timely evidence to counter the other evidence collected on them in secret. And of course keeping evidence in a good state long-term also complicates these issues of the defendants' rights.

Keeping what evidence? What secret file? We're not talking about a secret investigation here. This is just about a complaint that gets sealed and nobody reads until it gets unsealed after X number of others are added first. There is no investigation until it gets unsealed.

 

[laughing dog]

And with less evidence, there is less of a case. Anybody can make a complaint with zero evidence unsealed. This changes nothing in that regard.

Of course it does. An open allegation gets openly investigated. And since the investigation occurs at the time of the investigation, it is more likely to get the better results (in either direction).