|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2020 1:05:56 GMT
So Harvey was found guilty on two counts today.
I wonder, was a fair trial even technically possible for him to get, under the intense public scrutiny and media interest and all?
Like could the judge and jury really go into it as unbiased as possible
I myself doubt it. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Feb 25, 2020 1:15:14 GMT
So Harvey was found guilty on two counts today.
I wonder, was a fair trial even technically possible for him to get, under the intense public scrutiny and media interest and all?
Like could the judge and jury really go into it as unbiased as possible
I myself doubt it. What do you think? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Feb 25, 2020 1:18:50 GMT
No way. I’m thinking he’s guilty but then I was thinking that before the trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 25, 2020 1:35:02 GMT
I say he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2020 1:38:08 GMT
No way. I’m thinking he’s guilty but then I was thinking that before the trial. yeah exactly... And even if you were thinking he was innocent you would most likely Also think that based on all the media coverage and your own stance in these things people are Likely to have quite strong opinion one way or another. I think the legal framework of what constitutes a due process/ fair trial will have to be eventually more substantially re-examined given the technological and sociological developments of recent years. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2020 1:38:47 GMT
what makes you say that, if you don’t mind sharing... |
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Feb 25, 2020 1:43:59 GMT
Weinstein RUSHED to hospital... 
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 25, 2020 1:54:07 GMT
what makes you say that, if you don’t mind sharing... If it was an unfair trial, the jury would had let every accusation stick and clearly not all of them did. His luck just ran out. Good riddance. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 25, 2020 2:16:42 GMT
So Harvey was found guilty on two counts today. I wonder, was a fair trial even technically possible for him to get, under the intense public scrutiny and media interest and all? Like could the judge and jury really go into it as unbiased as possible I myself doubt it. What do you think? I went for the third option. Due to all the hype and bias, prejudice can't but help but creep in and really for that reason, this should have been a trial without jury perhaps. I don't care for the jury model anyway. Talking about creep's, Weinstein was a creep and if anything, he was a predator, but was cleared of that aspect. That is the main thing he is guilty of.
His past has caught up with him and this has been going on with him for around 30yrs +. Why only being nipped in the bud now? It was just accepted and covered up. What is going to happen now, since many of these claims are well past the statute of limitations, they will still influence his sentencing, even though he was not on trial for many of the witness testimonies. How can this really be considered justice. The same thing happened with OJ Simpson, for the extraneous amount of time he spent for armed robbery, allegedly attempting to steal his own stuff back. His past preceded him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2020 2:18:04 GMT
what makes you say that, if you don’t mind sharing... If it was an unfair trial, the jury would had let every accusation stick and clearly not all of them did. His luck just ran out. Good riddance. you make a good point and i see the validity of this argument BUT I think that people might not even realize how much they are influanced. And I am not saying it was unfair in a way that they planted evidence or proceeded without respecting the law, but that the highly publicized details got to their heads and shaped or at least Helped shape their opinion before they were even in the court room. so then when the jurors are asked if they Believe something how likely are you to believe a testimony if u alrradu believe the accused did it (is a major creep), walking into the court room? and as defense u can only take out so many jurors and u usually want to take out the extreme ones/crazies first. so by the time u want to take out the biased ones u have no more taking out left.. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 25, 2020 2:37:14 GMT
If it was an unfair trial, the jury would had let every accusation stick and clearly not all of them did. His luck just ran out. Good riddance. you make a good point and i see the validity of this argument BUT I think that people might not even realize how much they are influanced. And I am not saying it was unfair in a way that they planted evidence or proceeded without respecting the law, but that the highly publicized details got to their heads and shaped or at least Helped shape their opinion before they were even in the court room. so then when the jurors are asked if they Believe something how likely are you to believe a testimony if u alrradu believe the accused did it (is a major creep), walking into the court room? and as defense u can only take out so many jurors and u usually want to take out the extreme ones/crazies first. so by the time u want to take out the biased ones u have no more taking out left.. This result is seen as justice for those women that had endured suffering at the hands of this creep. But is it really justice, because I don't believe this really exists, not in a case like this that has been highly publicized? It has 'ultimately' been a lynch mob trial. Life isn't fair though and what is going down is going to down.
Many would have also been paid out silence money as has been often commented on. That is like accepting a bribe then keeping it, investing or spending it and then reneging on the agreement to keep silent. Will this bribe money be returned? This is blood money in a sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2020 2:40:38 GMT
you make a good point and i see the validity of this argument BUT I think that people might not even realize how much they are influanced. And I am not saying it was unfair in a way that they planted evidence or proceeded without respecting the law, but that the highly publicized details got to their heads and shaped or at least Helped shape their opinion before they were even in the court room. so then when the jurors are asked if they Believe something how likely are you to believe a testimony if u alrradu believe the accused did it (is a major creep), walking into the court room? and as defense u can only take out so many jurors and u usually want to take out the extreme ones/crazies first. so by the time u want to take out the biased ones u have no more taking out left.. This result is seen as justice for those women that had endured suffering at the hands of this creep. But is it really justice, because I don't believe this really exists, not in a case like this that has been highly publicized? It has 'ultimately' been a lynch mob trial. Life isn't fair though and what is going down is going to down.
Many would have also been paid out silence money as has been often commented on. That is like accepting a bribe then keeping it, investing or spending it and then reneging on the agreement to keep silent. Will this bribe money be returned? This is blood money in a sense. that’s the thing. Finding actual justice (balance of right and wrong) in this case or actually almost MeToo cases that were heavily medialized is a feat that I can’t imagine could even reach the goal of actual justice. What he did could have been 100x worse or less bad than what he will end up getting. Who knows. I feel there was more “justice” in the Cosby trial for example. But Harvey’s case is so tainted. |
|
|
|
Post by dianachristensen on Feb 25, 2020 2:46:31 GMT
If it was an unfair trial, the jury would had let every accusation stick and clearly not all of them did. His luck just ran out. Good riddance. you make a good point and i see the validity of this argument BUT I think that people might not even realize how much they are influanced. And I am not saying it was unfair in a way that they planted evidence or proceeded without respecting the law, but that the highly publicized details got to their heads and shaped or at least Helped shape their opinion before they were even in the court room. so then when the jurors are asked if they Believe something how likely are you to believe a testimony if u alrradu believe the accused did it (is a major creep), walking into the court room? and as defense u can only take out so many jurors and u usually want to take out the extreme ones/crazies first. so by the time u want to take out the biased ones u have no more taking out left.. Excuse my frankness, but you clearly neither saw nor read any of the coverage. It's really an insulting assertion you've made throughout this thread, especially considering the jury's actions once deliberations began. If what they did doesn't prove to you how fair they were, then you're the one with an irrational and unfair bias in favor of a fairly convicted predator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2020 3:06:14 GMT
you make a good point and i see the validity of this argument BUT I think that people might not even realize how much they are influanced. And I am not saying it was unfair in a way that they planted evidence or proceeded without respecting the law, but that the highly publicized details got to their heads and shaped or at least Helped shape their opinion before they were even in the court room. so then when the jurors are asked if they Believe something how likely are you to believe a testimony if u alrradu believe the accused did it (is a major creep), walking into the court room? and as defense u can only take out so many jurors and u usually want to take out the extreme ones/crazies first. so by the time u want to take out the biased ones u have no more taking out left.. Excuse my frankness, but you clearly neither saw nor read any of the coverage. It's really an insulting assertion you've made throughout this thread, especially considering the jury's actions once deliberations began. If what they did doesn't prove to you how fair they were, then you're the one with an irrational and unfair bias in favor of a fairly convicted predator. you are coreect i didnt follow much of the coverage of the deliberations, mine was more of a philosophical question, was it even possible. you believe it was - and maybe it was. maybe the coverage would have proven it to me. one day i might look into it more. but overall with cases like these, I wonder, is there perhaps a Better system in our legal future? Should there be? How can we really believe that all the information hurled our way in cases with So Much spotlight dont have an effect on the trial? for example, in China they are heavily experimenting with Ejustice. Verdicts essentially given by robots, no human factor. u can appeal the robot and then u get a human. I am not saying what they do is the best, merely pointing out there is a variety to it and that maybe thw legal system will need a reexamination sooner than later. btw injustice and bias can work both ways, for creep or against creep  |
|
|
|
Post by dianachristensen on Feb 25, 2020 4:29:55 GMT
Excuse my frankness, but you clearly neither saw nor read any of the coverage. It's really an insulting assertion you've made throughout this thread, especially considering the jury's actions once deliberations began. If what they did doesn't prove to you how fair they were, then you're the one with an irrational and unfair bias in favor of a fairly convicted predator. you are coreect i didnt follow much of the coverage of the deliberations, mine was more of a philosophical question, was it even possible. you believe it was - and maybe it was. maybe the coverage would have proven it to me. one day i might look into it more. but overall with cases like these, I wonder, is there perhaps a Better system in our legal future? Should there be? How can we really believe that all the information hurled our way in cases with So Much spotlight dont have an effect on the trial? for example, in China they are heavily experimenting with Ejustice. Verdicts essentially given by robots, no human factor. u can appeal the robot and then u get a human. I am not saying what they do is the best, merely pointing out there is a variety to it and that maybe thw legal system will need a reexamination sooner than later. btw injustice and bias can work both ways, for creep or against creep Here's an actual into which your philosophical can be subsumed: Harvey Weinstein received a fair trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 25, 2020 5:01:55 GMT
This result is seen as justice for those women that had endured suffering at the hands of this creep. But is it really justice, because I don't believe this really exists, not in a case like this that has been highly publicized? It has 'ultimately' been a lynch mob trial. Life isn't fair though and what is going down is going to down.
Many would have also been paid out silence money as has been often commented on. That is like accepting a bribe then keeping it, investing or spending it and then reneging on the agreement to keep silent. Will this bribe money be returned? This is blood money in a sense. that’s the thing. Finding actual justice (balance of right and wrong) in this case or actually almost MeToo cases that were heavily medialized is a feat that I can’t imagine could even reach the goal of actual justice. What he did could have been 100x worse or less bad than what he will end up getting. Who knows. I feel there was more “justice” in the Cosby trial for example. But Harvey’s case is so tainted. All of Hollywood is tainted by this scandal and the cover ups are just as despicable and ugly as Weinstein and his predatory behaviour. Weinstein has been the major scapegoat for an empire that can hang shame on many facets of its existence here. Women that kept quiet too, made it difficult for women that came after.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 25, 2020 7:09:34 GMT
I see the OP's point as putting aside our personal feelings towards Harvey(which generally is not good for most of us I would assume as it seems he's sort of the main fall guy for all of this shady behavior in Hollywood), given all of this #MeToo BS that's going to make things tougher for the accused straight up (like in terms of public opinion) regardless of this Harvey case.
so it's like in the 'old days', the accused could get away with a lot, but nowadays it's almost like the opposite of that is true in that if you do something somewhat minor, you get hanged for it anyways. like nowadays it's like a random male could grab a random females butt for example and they will probably try to claim assault or some other serious charge over it which i I think is BS as while a random guy should not do that stuff, it's not worth ruining someone over it either. but it seems many in today's world take things too far as far as punishment for someone.
but given what brief stuff I heard a while ago about his case... it appears there is no hard evidence against him, which looks good in his favor, but with I think it's multiple witnesses, that's not looking good for him as if it was a couple of people it would be easier to write it off but after a certain point (like when you start getting many accusing him of shady stuff) it starts looking more likely he crossed the line and is guilty on some level. still, I am not a fan of witnesses (and the like) as I tend to like more hard evidence, especially if someone is going to jail for a good portion of their life over it. because I am of the mindset I would rather risk let a guilty person go than risk putting a innocent person behind bars. that's why I tend to prefer more physical evidence etc even though I realize it's not always this easy etc. but I imagine some court cases are tough to get to the truth since when it's based on witnesses many people can exaggerate what actually happened and end up destroying someone when what actually happened was not as bad as the witness said it was etc.
p.s. I voted for the 'Possible Yes' option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Feb 25, 2020 7:45:45 GMT
I doubt it. His case became a media circus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2020 14:08:09 GMT
you are coreect i didnt follow much of the coverage of the deliberations, mine was more of a philosophical question, was it even possible. you believe it was - and maybe it was. maybe the coverage would have proven it to me. one day i might look into it more. but overall with cases like these, I wonder, is there perhaps a Better system in our legal future? Should there be? How can we really believe that all the information hurled our way in cases with So Much spotlight dont have an effect on the trial? for example, in China they are heavily experimenting with Ejustice. Verdicts essentially given by robots, no human factor. u can appeal the robot and then u get a human. I am not saying what they do is the best, merely pointing out there is a variety to it and that maybe thw legal system will need a reexamination sooner than later. btw injustice and bias can work both ways, for creep or against creep Here's an actual into which your philosophical can be subsumed: Harvey Weinstein received a fair trial. I would be honestly interested in discussing this with you no matter what opinion you hold... |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 25, 2020 14:15:03 GMT
No
|
|
