Opening Arguments has a very detailed breakdown of the decision to release Cosby in their latest episode - segment starts at 7:09 and lasts most of the episode. The "commitment not to prosecute" was merely a press statement where the DA at the time said they weren't going to go ahead with any prosecutions to allow civil suits to proceed. It was never formalised, it was just a verbal promise from that DA to exercise his prosecutorial discretion. It also wasn't the only way to get him to forgo pleading the 5th. It sounds like the Court has made a major mistake and it won't be overturned. The only recourse left is civil prosecutions and it sounds like more will happen now, so the best potential outcome is for his victims to bleed him dry.
But it doesn't mean that there can't be other prosecutions for his other crimes; however they would presumably avoid using the information used in this court case & would instead use other evidence. Hopefully in 2021 evidence of 50-odd women all describing a similar pattern of behaviour will actually be listened to, the way it wouldn't have been in 2005.
The problem is the statute of limitations. The criminal prosecution for sexually assaulting Andrea Constand was started just before the statute of limitations ran out. As far as I know its too late for the other victims.
Good point. Forgot about the statute of limitations
He has also "accepted responsibility" for her death but there's nothing about a murder/manslaughter charge in the articles I've seen so far. According to a reporter,
The court at the Old Bailey heard Wayne Couzens accepts responsibility for Sarah Everard’s killing, but was not asked to enter a plea to a charge of murder.
I don't understand why and I can't find any answers so far so if anyone knows what's going on please explain!
It can now be reported that Couzens hired a car and bought a roll of self-adhesive film days before the murder...
On 8 March, the day he was due on duty, he reported in sick. The next day, police arrested Couzens at 19:50 - 39 minutes after he had wiped the data from his mobile phone.
He has also "accepted responsibility" for her death but there's nothing about a murder/manslaughter charge in the articles I've seen so far. According to a reporter,
The court at the Old Bailey heard Wayne Couzens accepts responsibility for Sarah Everard’s killing, but was not asked to enter a plea to a charge of murder.
I don't understand why and I can't find any answers so far so if anyone knows what's going on please explain!
It can now be reported that Couzens hired a car and bought a roll of self-adhesive film days before the murder...
On 8 March, the day he was due on duty, he reported in sick. The next day, police arrested Couzens at 19:50 - 39 minutes after he had wiped the data from his mobile phone.
That 39 minutes is so dodgy. Or maybe he realised the game was up.
He has also "accepted responsibility" for her death but there's nothing about a murder/manslaughter charge in the articles I've seen so far. According to a reporter,
I don't understand why and I can't find any answers so far so if anyone knows what's going on please explain!
It can now be reported that Couzens hired a car and bought a roll of self-adhesive film days before the murder...
On 8 March, the day he was due on duty, he reported in sick. The next day, police arrested Couzens at 19:50 - 39 minutes after he had wiped the data from his mobile phone.
That 39 minutes is so dodgy. Or maybe he realised the game was up.
Wild speculation here, but I wonder if a mate tipped him off that they were on their way to arrest him.
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2021 7:12 pm
by Bird on a Fire
That was my immediate assumption too - the thin blue line.
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2021 7:27 pm
by Grumble
That is what I was trying to insinuate
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2021 8:09 pm
by egbert26
So he was accused of indecent exposure 6 years ago and then a few days before killing Sarah Everard. What was he up to between those times? I wonder if the prostitutes he visited during this time have any stories to tell. I wonder how the police would react to a sex worker reporting crimes committed by one of their own...
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2021 8:47 am
by bmforre
I've placed a very foolish and insensitive suggestion in the spoiler below (kept it in the thread so that fishnut's rebuttal makes sense)
Spoiler:
Is group sex possibly the safer option?
But safest with camera running and downloading?
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:05 am
by Fishnut
I've put a quoted comment which has attracted some distress in a spoiler - EPD Spoiler:
Fishnut: I was just pointing at the difficulty of forensic proof when only victim and violator were present and violator took care to avoid leaving traces that can serve as evidence.
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:45 am
by Fishnut
Filming people having sex isn't any sort of a solution to that though.
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:58 am
by bmforre
I've placed a very foolish and insensitive suggestion in the spoiler below (kept it in the thread so that fishnut's rebuttal makes sense)
Filming people having sex isn't any sort of a solution to that though.
Certainly not for all people. I was just struck by the contradiction.
The now widespread availability of video recording cameras carried by most people is already having influence against violence and harassment.
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2021 12:25 pm
by Fishnut
There is so much wrong with the idea that women will be safe if we film sexual encounters it's hard to know where to start, or whether to even bother or just dismiss the idea as a joke. But I don't think it was meant as a joke, I think it was meant as an earnest suggestion so I'm going to take a little bit of time to try and break down the problems with it. I'm going to have to keep things less well-referenced than I'd like as I have things to do.
First off. The idea that what women need is safety. We do, of course, everyone wants to be safe. But what we're often being made to do is trade our freedom for that safety. In this case it would be our right to privacy in our our most intimate moments. This piece written shortly after Sarah Everard's murder explains all the ways in which women curtail our lives in order to maintain our safety or are told to curtail our lives, from not wearing headphones or using our phones when out, to dressing in particular ways and not walking in particular areas, even though, as Sarah's death proves, if a man sets out to kill a woman they will, and if they don't get me they'll get someone else - we aren't collectively made any safer through these actions, we are just hoping the lion will pick another antelope. In other words, none of these actions do anything to reduce violence against women, which surely should be the aim of any civilised society.
In a speech following the gang-rape of Jyoti Singh in Delhi in 2012, Kavita Krishnan said the following,
Women have a right to freedom. And that freedom without fear is what we need to protect, to guard and respect.
I am saying this because I feel that the word ‘safety’ with regard to women has been used far too much (…)
Women know what ‘safety’ refers to.
It means—you behave yourself. You get back into the house. You don’t dress in a particular way. Do not live by your freedom, and this means that you are safe.
A whole range of patriarchal laws and institutions tell us what to do in the guise of keeping us ‘safe’. We reject this entire notion. We don’t want it.
Secondly, the idea that women will be safer if their sexual encounters were filmed. This is a very naive view. Releasing intimate photos of videos of women is increasingly popular as a way of punishing women. In the UK, as of 2017 over 30 revenge p.rn sites were operating in the UK, and I'd be very surprised if that figure hasn't gone up since. The reputational harm done when women's sexual exploits are shared with the world are significantly worse than those experienced by men. Even if one were to somehow manage to protect these videos from being shared via revenge p.rn then there is still the risk of hacking and disseminating the images. We have seen cases of celebrities having their personal data hacked and intimate photos distributed and I have no doubt that a site that stores private sexual videos will be the subject of continuous attack.
Thirdly, the idea that having something filmed will result in prosecution and justice. Just because an incident is filmed does not mean that people will correctly determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. How many cases before George Floyd were filmed and yet failed to result in prosecution? Even if you had the participants state that everything that's about to take place is consensual doesn't mean that it is. It just means that the intention is for consensual acts. But consent can be withdrawn at any time and unless a camera is right in the person's face I fail to see how they would be able to consistently and reliably pick up on that.
TL:DR cases of harassment and rape are difficult to prove, but filming all encounters is not a solution as it removes our right to privacy in the name of safety and only exposes us to more risks.
Filming people having sex isn't any sort of a solution to that though.
Certainly not for all people. I was just struck by the contradiction.
The now widespread availability of video recording cameras carried by most people is already having influence against violence and harassment.
And yet Pornhub and other such websites have repeatedly been found to host (and monetise) videos of rape, child sex abuse and revenge p.rn. It passes their vetting procedures and women involved have a hell of a job getting it removed from these websites.
I don't think video technology have done much for VAWG other than allowing it to be distributed as w.nk fodder for like-minded individuals to enjoy.
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2021 2:03 pm
by bmforre
Anyone know if so-called lie detectors have ever contributed to catching and punishing violators and harassers of women?
I fear the sense of entitlement may often be so strong that there's no sense of guilt to detect.
Anyone know if so-called lie detectors have ever contributed to catching and punishing violators and harassers of women?
I fear the sense of entitlement may often be so strong that there's no sense of guilt to detect.
Lie detectors aren't a reliable means to detect lies. They are easy to spoof and are prone to false positives.
However, they can work if the person being tested believes that their lies can be detected. In that sense they can be useful as a kind of law enforcement placebo.
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2021 7:04 pm
by Stephanie
I've put a quoted comment which has attracted some distress in a spoiler - EPD Spoiler:
There is so much wrong with the idea that women will be safe if we film sexual encounters it's hard to know where to start, or whether to even bother or just dismiss the idea as a joke. But I don't think it was meant as a joke, I think it was meant as an earnest suggestion so I'm going to take a little bit of time to try and break down the problems with it. I'm going to have to keep things less well-referenced than I'd like as I have things to do.
First off. The idea that what women need is safety. We do, of course, everyone wants to be safe. But what we're often being made to do is trade our freedom for that safety. In this case it would be our right to privacy in our our most intimate moments. This piece written shortly after Sarah Everard's murder explains all the ways in which women curtail our lives in order to maintain our safety or are told to curtail our lives, from not wearing headphones or using our phones when out, to dressing in particular ways and not walking in particular areas, even though, as Sarah's death proves, if a man sets out to kill a woman they will, and if they don't get me they'll get someone else - we aren't collectively made any safer through these actions, we are just hoping the lion will pick another antelope. In other words, none of these actions do anything to reduce violence against women, which surely should be the aim of any civilised society.
In a speech following the gang-rape of Jyoti Singh in Delhi in 2012, Kavita Krishnan said the following,
Women have a right to freedom. And that freedom without fear is what we need to protect, to guard and respect.
I am saying this because I feel that the word ‘safety’ with regard to women has been used far too much (…)
Women know what ‘safety’ refers to.
It means—you behave yourself. You get back into the house. You don’t dress in a particular way. Do not live by your freedom, and this means that you are safe.
A whole range of patriarchal laws and institutions tell us what to do in the guise of keeping us ‘safe’. We reject this entire notion. We don’t want it.
Secondly, the idea that women will be safer if their sexual encounters were filmed. This is a very naive view. Releasing intimate photos of videos of women is increasingly popular as a way of punishing women. In the UK, as of 2017 over 30 revenge p.rn sites were operating in the UK, and I'd be very surprised if that figure hasn't gone up since. The reputational harm done when women's sexual exploits are shared with the world are significantly worse than those experienced by men. Even if one were to somehow manage to protect these videos from being shared via revenge p.rn then there is still the risk of hacking and disseminating the images. We have seen cases of celebrities having their personal data hacked and intimate photos distributed and I have no doubt that a site that stores private sexual videos will be the subject of continuous attack.
Thirdly, the idea that having something filmed will result in prosecution and justice. Just because an incident is filmed does not mean that people will correctly determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. How many cases before George Floyd were filmed and yet failed to result in prosecution? Even if you had the participants state that everything that's about to take place is consensual doesn't mean that it is. It just means that the intention is for consensual acts. But consent can be withdrawn at any time and unless a camera is right in the person's face I fail to see how they would be able to consistently and reliably pick up on that.
TL:DR cases of harassment and rape are difficult to prove, but filming all encounters is not a solution as it removes our right to privacy in the name of safety and only exposes us to more risks.
Very much this.
Re: Male violence and harassment of women
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2021 1:51 pm
by Stephanie
I'm honestly still horrified that a response to a woman's rape and murder is "group sex and filming". It's such a revolting idea (and I've heard from women off forum who feel similarly) - why on earth would anyone in their right mind suggest it?
Can I ask that men with any similar ideas go away, have a think, a proper read, and sense check their little solutions before dropping them here for us to read?
I'm honestly still horrified that a response to a woman's rape and murder is "group sex and filming". It's such a revolting idea (and I've heard from women off forum who feel similarly) - why on earth would anyone in their right mind suggest it?
Can I ask that men with any similar ideas go away, have a think, a proper read, and sense check their little solutions before dropping them here for us to read?
Absolutely. The most charitable I can be is assuming very little thought went into that post.
I'm honestly still horrified that a response to a woman's rape and murder is "group sex and filming". It's such a revolting idea (and I've heard from women off forum who feel similarly) - why on earth would anyone in their right mind suggest it?
Can I ask that men with any similar ideas go away, have a think, a proper read, and sense check their little solutions before dropping them here for us to read?
Absolutely. The most charitable I can be is assuming very little thought went into that post.
Or a lot of thought went into it but zero empathy and a monumentally inadequate understanding of the risks that women in particular run. But it isn't a solution for any type of sexual assault.