CDZ Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really where we are as a nation?

[320 Years of History]

Today, Bill Cosby was arraigned in court on three charges of felony aggravated indecent assault. Various headlines have for a while now been talking about "the fall of an icon." (Note: the content at the link is only the affidavit of the offended woman, that is, what she claims happened. None of it has been proven or disproven.)

Excuse me? The man was charged with a crime, not convicted of one. Isn't it a bit premature to think of the man as fallen? Does Mr. Cosby, along with all person's charged with a crime, not deserve the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty of the crime he's been charged with? The "court of public opinion," however seems already to have "convicted" Mr. Cosby. A television network cancelled an upcoming show that included Mr. Cosby and the headlines speak of "the fall of an icon." Really? Is that the nation we have become? If so, is that a nation truly worth defending against the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda? How does being that kind of a nation make us any different from the Soviet Union, North Korea, or a host of others having no semblance of human and civil rights?

Right now, the facts as we know them to be so are that women have accused Mr. Cosby of sexually assaulting them. Mr. Cosby has stated that the accusations are untrue.

Why is it that the mere making of an accusation is taken as "proof" that the accusation is true? Is that approach at all the one on which the U.S. was founded? Is that tack the one promised in the Constitution?

Mr. Cosby isn't running for political office, but we do the same thing when politicians or would be politicians make empty and (at the time) unfounded accusations. Basically, if one politicians accuses another before the latter can preempt the accusation, the latter is screwed.

When did we stop saying to people who make accusations, "So you say. Where's the clear and unambiguous proof that you are correct? And absent any, you need to keep your thoughts to yourself!" Do people not realize that by "buying into the 'guilty until proven innocent' model, we, as voters, not only allow ourselves to be manipulated, often to our detriment, but also foster the erosion of our nation?

 

[320 Years of History]

Just to put some perspective on things...who among you hasn't heard some version of the following?

• Don't forget that alcohol helps to remove the stress, the bra, the panties and many other problems.
• In my experience there's two ways to get things done, the right way and the drunk way.
  
• You don't like her/him? Drink more.
  
• A doctor tells a man/woman s/he can no longer touch anything alcoholic. So s/he gets a divorce.
  
• There are a lot of hormones in beer. When I drink five bottles I also can't drive a car and start behaving illogically.
  
• What is the difference between a hound and a hunk? About 5 drinks.

Those are all just jokes, but the fact is that Mr. Cosby is hardly the only person who may have resorted to mind altering substances to get a woman "wasted" in order to then obtain sexual satisfaction from her. You don't have to tell us here whether you'e used or been subject to the "get her/him wasted to get yourself laid" tactic, but whether you have used it or not, you surely know of folks who have. I don't care really what be the substance used, the fact is that one's being incapable of acting as one would were one not under the influence of that substance is the same.

In other words, I think before condemning Mr. Cosby and deeming him guilty before his day in court, a whole lot of folks need to be saying to themselves, "there but for the grace of God go I," for the difference between them and Mr. Cosby is that they haven't been accused in public and taken to court over the matter. They can be discussed in public when the legal cases are finished in a court of law.

FWIW, I don't really care if Mr. Cosby is found guilty or not guilty. I do not cotton to the idea of attorneys and plaintiffs/victims "trying" their case in the :court of public opinion" prior to doing so in a court of legal justice. That's what our system of jurisprudence is designed for, and that's where should address matters of civil and criminal wrongdoing. They/we can discuss the matter at length after the trial(s) conclude in a court(s) of law.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Hell we're lucky the attacker is on trial for once in a nationally televised court case. Usually it's the victim who died or got raped getting demonized by the media.

Did Cosby rape these women using the drug he claimed to use under oath? We'll see. At least he won't get a Go Fund Me campaign.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hell we're lucky the attacker is on trial for once in a nationally televised court case. Usually it's the victim who died or got raped getting demonized by the media.

Did Cosby rape these women using the drug he claimed to use under oath? We'll see. At least he won't get a Go Fund Me campaign.

Red:
It really doesn't matter whether a victim is demonized by the media. An accuser/offended party in a criminal case is rarely at a loss for having made the accusation; moreover, the accuser's/victim's financial resources are rarely a deciding factor in the quality of the case that will be made on their behalf.

Not so the defendant in a criminal case. I mean really, do you honestly think a public defender can get a poor person the sort of results O.J. Simpson, Wilbur Mills or Kenneth Lay got? Do you really think that the defense attorney for a person who is too wealthy for a public defender, but not rich enough for a "Shapiro, Bailey and Cochran" defense is likely to get the same outcome?

Blue:
Just for clarity's sake, I suspect we'll only find out whether he raped one of them.

 

[jwoodie]

According to news reports, the woman sought out Cosby and willingly took the pills he offered to her. Was she a victim or a groupie?

 

[320 Years of History]

According to news reports, the woman sought out Cosby and willingly took the pills he offered to her. Was she a victim or a groupie?

I believe you. I'll wait to see what happens at trial before I conclude on whether what the news reports "holds water."

I don't know whether the woman was/is a groupie or victim. I suppose it's also possible she is/was both.

Really, what matters in my mind is that the charges placed against Mr. Cosby are grave and formal; they are charges that will without question be resolved in a court of law. Were they the sorts of claims that would never see a day in court, the "court of public opinion" would be more appropriate a place to "hear" and "decide" them. But that's not the case with Mr. Cosby.

All I'm saying is that as his fellow citizens, for now, we at least owe him the presumption of innocence, (1) because it's a core principle of our system, our nation, and (2) because it aids in both he and his accuser having a fair day in court; each side's prospects remain unsullied if the whole matter is left alone outside of the courtroom. I believe there's a time and place for everything, and now until the trial date, and in the "court of public opinion," is neither the time nor the place for such a serious matter.

 

[Staidhup]

Our current media conducts their own investigation, with bias, weighs allegations then plays judge and Jury. Sensationalism sells news papers, feeds ratings, sells advertising, you go figure it out. The question that needs to be addressed is freedom of the press, speech, and abuse. In the same light should politicians be held to the same standards? Would it not be logical to assume when Harry Reid claimed Mit Romney had not paid taxes, and was guilty of tax fraud that Mr. Romney should have sued Reid for slander and won? It seems ironic politicians can lie through their teeth and yet not be held accountable by the very same media that preys on character assassination and plays judge and jury? As for the former president Clinton he was convicted, and regardless of the medias insistence that he was innocent and the impeachment hearing was politically motivated without subsistence.
As for Mr. Cosby or any famous individual, what better way is there to extort but to cast malicious allegations and let the media do its dance with the designed anticipation he or she will settle out of court.
Now to address the ability of the wealthy to receive different treatment within our judiciary system. I know several competent public defenders, prosecutors, and judges, who posses high levels of judicial acumen, to allege they would compromise the outcome of a trial as a result of a defendants status and wealth is preposterous. They all agree with the fact that an accomplished attorney in a specialized field would in fact benefit their client during proceedings. This is why there is an appellate system, to right injustices.

 

[320 Years of History]

Our current media conducts their own investigation, with bias, weighs allegations then plays judge and Jury. Sensationalism sells news papers, feeds ratings, sells advertising, you go figure it out.

The question that needs to be addressed is freedom of the press, speech, and abuse. In the same light should politicians be held to the same standards? Would it not be logical to assume when Harry Reid claimed Mit Romney had not paid taxes, and was guilty of tax fraud that Mr. Romney should have sued Reid for slander and won?

It seems ironic politicians can lie through their teeth and yet not be held accountable by the very same media that preys on character assassination and plays judge and jury? As for the former president Clinton he was convicted, and regardless of the medias insistence that he was innocent and the impeachment hearing was politically motivated without subsistence.

As for Mr. Cosby or any famous individual, what better way is there to extort but to cast malicious allegations and let the media do its dance with the designed anticipation he or she will settle out of court.

Now to address the ability of the wealthy to receive different treatment within our judiciary system. I know several competent public defenders, prosecutors, and judges, who posses high levels of judicial acumen, to allege they would compromise the outcome of a trial as a result of a defendants status and wealth is preposterous. They all agree with the fact that an accomplished attorney in a specialized field would in fact benefit their client during proceedings. This is why there is an appellate system, to right injustices.

Red:
Point taken. Can't deny that to be so. The question is should we, as consumers, allow it to be so and to persist? The thing is that we also have to have enough integrity as individuals to disallow the prevarications that are what we want to hear as well as those we don't want to believe. That requires we look beyond what we are told in brief stories, tweets and soundbites.

Blue:
Yes. Without exception, yes.

Purple:
Mr. Romney certainly has the means to have pursued such a suit. Why he didn't is his to tell. Should he have prevailed? That's a question I cannot answer beyond saying that it seems as though he would have for even one of the press organs most sympathetic to Democrats, The Huffington Post, rebuked Mr. Reid. I mean really....if a Democrat can't get The Huff on their side re: a given matter, they need to just hang it up. Better to just show a little dignity, a little integrity, and say, "Okay. Yes, I was wrong. Period. I apologize." Mr. Reid did not do that and because he did not, I'm so glad he's gone.

Pink:
Well, the press do hold folks accountable to an extent, but to be sure, a good many reporters blunder when interviewing politicians. Why they do I cannot say. For example:

Question:
Mr. Secretary, have you found out anything on how you respond to the charges from the Taliban that U.S. jets bombed a hospital near Herat, killing perhaps more than a hundred people? And adding to that, are U.S. forces now directly — directly — attacking Taliban forces protecting both Kabul and Mazar-e Sharif?

Answer:
The Taliban have said they have shot down at least two helicopters, which is false. They have not. They have indicated that they have captured some Americans, which is false. They have not. And we have absolutely no evidence at all that would suggest that the allegation that you cited is correct.

Undoubtedly, the reporter would like both questions answered. But by giving him two choices, asking a so-called “double-barreled” question, the reporter's just given the Secretary the option to pick and choose, which is what he does. The reporter aimed both barrels but only one fired. The result–a syntactical maze that amounts to a non-denial denial to Taliban charges that U.S. jets bombed a hospital. However, the Secretary was able to dodge the question about direct U.S. attacks on Taliban forces.​

Make no mistake, however. Even the most novice rhetoricians are well aware of the various ways to parry hard questions (that is, those one doesn't want to address and/or those one knows are just legitimately hard to answer). Techniques like "bridging" and "framing" are used countless times everyday. Reporters recognize them for what they are -- signals that what is about to follow will most likely be a "non answer" answer -- but I don't know what share of the general public recognizes them.

Be that as it may, one doesn't need to recognize the technique, the only real benefit of that is that it allows one to know sooner that the "fluff is about to flow." Non Communications or Rhetoric 101 audience members can always just listen carefully to the question, and determine whether the reply actually answers it. If it doesn't, some technique got used. Alternately, one can merely apply the lessons we all picked up in our high school or college composition classes.

(It never ceases to amaze me how it is that 80%, perhaps more, of everything one really needs to know, or know how to do, was taught in or before high school (i.e., during the first 20% of one's life), yet most folks only remember 20% of what was taught there. LOL)

Green:
I apologize for having led you to think that is among the implications I intended by my comment. It is not.

What I had in mind was that wealthy folks' means allow them to, via the attorneys they engage, hire myriad investigators, pay for expert testimony, and obtain/exploit other means of building a case favorable to their objective of being found not guilty, or at least not guilty of the most severe charges against them. I had no intention of remarking on the specific and comparative competence of public defenders or private attorneys, to say nothing of judges.

 

[320 Years of History]

Interesting factoid in the Bill Cosby case: the man who will become the District Attorney, and who announced the charges yesterday, ran for the DA's post on platform that specifically included arresting, charging and convicting Bill Cosby for rape. He won his race. According to the website "Thinking Progress,"

Kevin Steele....aired television ads that label Castor [the then sitting DA] as “a former D.A. who refused to prosecute Bill Cosby.” Castor, a Republican, left the D.A.’s office in 2008 and went on to serve as county commissioner. Steele is a Democrat who has held his assistant D.A. post for the past eight years.


​

 

[JoeMoma]

At mimimum Cosby is guilty of being a perverted SOB that drugs women so he can have sex with him. He is definitely not the moral fatherly figure that he was once thought to be. If anything, the court of public opinion moved very slow in convicting Cosby. However it it difficult to ignore the shear volume of women that have come foward at this point.

He still benefits from the presumption of innocents in the criminal court. With the best lawyers that money can buy, he may very well win his case.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey, usually people think of their icons as being infallible and doing no wrong.

However, when accusations start piling up like they have for Cosby, the simple fact that he is accused of doing what he's accused of is enough to tarnish the reputation, especially when they are considered to be a bastion of family values. Icons are held in such high regard that simply suggesting that they have done wrong is a hit to their rep.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hey, usually people think of their icons as being infallible and doing no wrong.

However, when accusations start piling up like they have for Cosby, the simple fact that he is accused of doing what he's accused of is enough to tarnish the reputation, especially when they are considered to be a bastion of family values. Icons are held in such high regard that simply suggesting that they have done wrong is a hit to their rep.

Where the establishment emphasized humility, prudence, lineage, meritocracy celebrates ambition, achievement, brains and self-betterment.
― Christopher Hayes, Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy​

Okay, so I'm willing, for now at least, to accept your assertion as true. Assuming it is so, is the line of thinking you identified rational? Is it fair? I think the answers are "no" and "no."

Given those answers, a natural question is "to what extent are people, mature adult American citizens, rational and fair, respectively or in combination? To the extent that the answer isn't something that corresponds to "most of the time" or "the vast majority of the time," another natural pair of questions is,

• Does one actually espouse the Founders' principles of republican (not Republican) thought that drive the design of our nation?
• Why be an American when there are in fact nations that operate irrationally and/or unfairly, and in which one still can lead a very productive and pleasurable life/lifestyle?" It's not as though the U.S. forces its citizens to remain so.

Among the overarching principles that shaped our nation, and upon which its success depends is adherence to one key thing: rational and disinterested thought and action.

Republicans did not hold that man was perfect or perfectible at birth, most believed that if men were well educated and informed, their mind would improve and they would become capable of choosing what is right, acting outside their own self-interest. Even the common man generally used good sense, and the Jeffersonians trusted in the people’s judgment so long as they had access to good teachers and newspapers to inform and educate them.​

That so many among our current citizenry routinely neglect that simple practice -- thinking rationally and unselfishly -- is it any wonder that our nation faces the domestic and international "crises" it does? How could it not when the design of our "system" relies on voters and leaders doing exactly that and few actually do? The reality is that our Founding Fathers designed and gave us "just enough rope with which to hang ourselves," and that's effectively what we are doing when collectively and in the main we act as you have above stated we do.

Were the Founders and their contemporaries the first and last bunch of Americans to actually live by both the letter and spirit of the words they penned in the Declaration and Constitution? The answer must surely be "no," but then if it is, why is it so difficult to elect, lionize, appoint, etc. leaders -- political, administrative, and more -- who actually do espouse that one ideal? What do we defend? The nation we have or the one we purportedly claim to be? If the latter, do we really need to keep deluding ourselves by pretending we are and want that which we are not and do not?

Truly the answer come down to each of us as individuals. It's a matter of whether we back up our expressed ideals with actions that support them, not those that oppose them. If one "buys into" the Jeffersonian principle of republicanism, one must necessarily subordinate one's own narrow interests to the general welfare of the community. One must approach politics as a rational and collaborative, not competitive, process.

At the very least, one needs to refrain from citing as one's champion the likes of Thomas Jefferson and his fellow republicans. Hell, why lie? Why not just say, "Jefferson and the other founding republicans were full of sh*t. I/we should not espouse their political values or approach. None of their central ideas are what inspire mine/ours." If nothing else, doing that is at least an honest statement of how one/we view our country now. I'm not saying one has to "buy into" Jefferson's ideas, if one doesn't , well, one just doesn't. It is what it is. I'm just saying, for example, there's no point, no integrity, in invoking his ideas if one doesn't really accept them and want to live by them.

The people’s representatives will reach their destination, invested with the highest confidence and unlimited power. They will show great character. They must consider that great responsibility follows inseparably from great power. To their energy, to their courage, and above all to their prudence, they shall owe their success and their glory.
- Voltaire​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really where we are as a nation?"

No.

You're confusing civil law with criminal law, where the former's burden of proof is different.

'Various headlines have for a while now been talking about "the fall of an icon."'

Which in fact his is, by his own admission:

'July 6, 2015
After a request from the Associated Press, court documents from Constand's 2005 lawsuit are released. In Cosby's testimony, he confirms one accuser's account that he had sex with her after giving her quaaludes, though he avoided the question of whether he gave her the drugs without her knowledge. Elsewhere in the documents, Cosby admits to offering money to accusers for their "education," and says he gave The National Enquirer an exclusive interview in exchange for the tabloid not running an interview with Beth Ferrier.

July 18, 2015
The Times releases excerpts from the full transcript of Cosby's 2005 deposition. In his testimony, Cosby details his process for getting women to sleep with him, which involved approaching women who were professionally or emotionally vulnerable and playing the role of an experienced mentor. Cosby also admits to giving women quaaludes before sex but denies anything unconsensual, telling the court, "I think I'm a pretty decent reader of people and their emotions in these romantic sexual things."'

http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/timeline-of-the-abuse-charges-against-cosby.html

Cosby's own words and actions lead to his downfall, separate and apart from any alleged criminal wrongdoing.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Guilty until proven innocent. Is that really where we are as a nation?"

No.

You're confusing civil law with criminal law, where the former's burden of proof is different.

'Various headlines have for a while now been talking about "the fall of an icon."'

Which in fact his is, by his own admission:

'July 6, 2015
After a request from the Associated Press, court documents from Constand's 2005 lawsuit are released. In Cosby's testimony, he confirms one accuser's account that he had sex with her after giving her quaaludes, though he avoided the question of whether he gave her the drugs without her knowledge. Elsewhere in the documents, Cosby admits to offering money to accusers for their "education," and says he gave The National Enquirer an exclusive interview in exchange for the tabloid not running an interview with Beth Ferrier.

July 18, 2015
The Times releases excerpts from the full transcript of Cosby's 2005 deposition. In his testimony, Cosby details his process for getting women to sleep with him, which involved approaching women who were professionally or emotionally vulnerable and playing the role of an experienced mentor. Cosby also admits to giving women quaaludes before sex but denies anything unconsensual, telling the court, "I think I'm a pretty decent reader of people and their emotions in these romantic sexual things."'

http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/timeline-of-the-abuse-charges-against-cosby.html

Cosby's own words and actions lead to his downfall, separate and apart from any alleged criminal wrongdoing.

Red:
I agree Mr. Cosby is an icon; that element of the remark isn't the focus of what I wrote about nor was it ever in question in my mind. I think it's premature to refer to him as fallen. I'm fine with referring to him as fallen if/when he's found guilty of the crimes with which he's been charged.

Blue:
I am quite certain I'm not confusing those two things. In neither civil nor criminal proceedings is one "guilty" before one has had one's day in court. The central theme of the post/thread is that it is wrong for the public to conclude on one's status, to the extent that status will be determined in a court of law, prior to one's having one's day in a court of law. In Mr. Cosby's case, that status is, based on the headlines, that of "fallen icon" as opposed to "still being a 'not have fallen' icon."

 

[JoeMoma]

The public is free to believe whatever it wants, when it wants based on whatever it wants. The public is made up of many individuals that will have many varied opinions. If I, a member of the public, wish to believe that Cosby is guilty of rape, then I may do so regardless of what takes place in a court of law. The public does not weld the power of the justice system to punish Cosby. The public does have the power to boycott Cosby and anything that he is associated with.

 

[miketx]

In my opinion the media is as untrustworthy as a fox in a hen house. That is all I have say about the sorry filth.

 

[320 Years of History]

The public is free to believe whatever it wants, when it wants based on whatever it wants. The public is made up of many individuals that will have many varied opinions. If I, a member of the public, wish to believe that Cosby is guilty of rape, then I may do so regardless of what takes place in a court of law. The public does not weld the power of the justice system to punish Cosby. The public does have the power to boycott Cosby and anything that he is associated with.

Red:
Individuals are free to believe what they want. It is irresponsible ethically/morally reprehensible, and perhaps hypocritical, for them to act on those beliefs absent proof that what they believe is also true, that is, based on that which is true, for the day may come when they face allegations they claim are untrue and would want to be believed at their word until it is established that they should not be. It is ethically/morally reprehensible for individuals to initiate, lead and/or contribute to the perpetuation of beliefs about the wrongdoing of others, beliefs that cannot or have not be shown to be true.

Notwithstanding the republican principles that underpin our nation's founding, just how does it happen that our overwhelmingly Christian nation finds it so easy to just outright ignore one of that belief system's fundamental tenets: treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated? Were you in a position of having been accused of a crime, would you want that the public presume you are innocent until the verdict, or would you feel that being demonized and denied opportunities and respect, respect you've earned over the course of half a century, before you'e had your day in court?

Blue:
You are correct, the public doesn't collectively wield the same punitive power as do the courts. The public nonetheless has means at its disposal to punish a person, be it Mr. Cosby or others like him who have been accused and not yet convicted.

In Mr. Cosby's case, NBC's cancelling a show he was to be part of is one such punishment. NBC is, of course, not "the public," but NBC does in part and at times respond to and cater to the whims of the public. Cancelling Mr. Cosby's participation in a program they intended to air is one of those times.

I have no will to engage a "chicken and the egg" discussion about NBC's action because whether NBC is responding to public whim or leading, presaging, or causing it doesn't, as goes the presumption of innocence before a trial, matter. The nature of the punishment(s) the public and its factotums can mete out also does not matter. What matters is that NBC, like so many others, have failed to act in accordance with that principle.

 

[JoeMoma]

The public is free to believe whatever it wants, when it wants based on whatever it wants. The public is made up of many individuals that will have many varied opinions. If I, a member of the public, wish to believe that Cosby is guilty of rape, then I may do so regardless of what takes place in a court of law. The public does not weld the power of the justice system to punish Cosby. The public does have the power to boycott Cosby and anything that he is associated with.

Red:
Individuals are free to believe what they want. It is irresponsible ethically/morally reprehensible, and perhaps hypocritical, for them to act on those beliefs absent proof that what they believe is also true, that is, based on that which is true, for the day may come when they face allegations they claim are untrue and would want to be believed at their word until it is established that they should not be. It is ethically/morally reprehensible for individuals to initiate, lead and/or contribute to the perpetuation of beliefs about the wrongdoing of others, beliefs that cannot or have not be shown to be true.

Notwithstanding the republican principles that underpin our nation's founding, just how does it happen that our overwhelmingly Christian nation finds it so easy to just outright ignore one of that belief system's fundamental tenets: treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated? Were you in a position of having been accused of a crime, would you want that the public presume you are innocent until the verdict, or would you feel that being demonized and denied opportunities and respect, respect you've earned over the course of half a century, before you'e had your day in court?

Blue:
You are correct, the public doesn't collectively wield the same punitive power as do the courts. The public nonetheless has means at its disposal to punish a person, be it Mr. Cosby or others like him who have been accused and not yet convicted.

In Mr. Cosby's case, NBC's cancelling a show he was to be part of is one such punishment. NBC is, of course, not "the public," but NBC does in part and at times respond to and cater to the whims of the public. Cancelling Mr. Cosby's participation in a program they intended to air is one of those times.

I have no will to engage a "chicken and the egg" discussion about NBC's action because whether NBC is responding to public whim or leading, presaging, or causing it doesn't, as goes the presumption of innocence before a trial, matter. The nature of the punishment(s) the public and its factotums can mete out also does not matter. What matters is that NBC, like so many others, have failed to act in accordance with that principle.

So you believe that there must be a criminal trial in which a person is legally convicted of a crime before information can be acted on? (Rhetorical Question)

It is public knowledge that more than 50 women have come forward accusing Cosby of sexual assault and the like. In many if not most of these cases, illegal drugs are involved. Cosby is on record to giving at least one woman illegal drugs prior to sex while under oath. With this much information, it is safe to conclude that Cosby is at minimum a pervert that used his position and power to prey on women for sex using illegal drugs.

Until recently, it appeared that Cosby would not be charged with any crimes due to statute of limitations. Should the public simply ignore the information if there is never a criminal trial.and a convection?

 

[320 Years of History]

The public is free to believe whatever it wants, when it wants based on whatever it wants. The public is made up of many individuals that will have many varied opinions. If I, a member of the public, wish to believe that Cosby is guilty of rape, then I may do so regardless of what takes place in a court of law. The public does not weld the power of the justice system to punish Cosby. The public does have the power to boycott Cosby and anything that he is associated with.

Red:
Individuals are free to believe what they want. It is irresponsible ethically/morally reprehensible, and perhaps hypocritical, for them to act on those beliefs absent proof that what they believe is also true, that is, based on that which is true, for the day may come when they face allegations they claim are untrue and would want to be believed at their word until it is established that they should not be. It is ethically/morally reprehensible for individuals to initiate, lead and/or contribute to the perpetuation of beliefs about the wrongdoing of others, beliefs that cannot or have not be shown to be true.

Notwithstanding the republican principles that underpin our nation's founding, just how does it happen that our overwhelmingly Christian nation finds it so easy to just outright ignore one of that belief system's fundamental tenets: treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated? Were you in a position of having been accused of a crime, would you want that the public presume you are innocent until the verdict, or would you feel that being demonized and denied opportunities and respect, respect you've earned over the course of half a century, before you'e had your day in court?

Blue:
You are correct, the public doesn't collectively wield the same punitive power as do the courts. The public nonetheless has means at its disposal to punish a person, be it Mr. Cosby or others like him who have been accused and not yet convicted.

In Mr. Cosby's case, NBC's cancelling a show he was to be part of is one such punishment. NBC is, of course, not "the public," but NBC does in part and at times respond to and cater to the whims of the public. Cancelling Mr. Cosby's participation in a program they intended to air is one of those times.

I have no will to engage a "chicken and the egg" discussion about NBC's action because whether NBC is responding to public whim or leading, presaging, or causing it doesn't, as goes the presumption of innocence before a trial, matter. The nature of the punishment(s) the public and its factotums can mete out also does not matter. What matters is that NBC, like so many others, have failed to act in accordance with that principle.

So you believe that there must be a criminal trial in which a person is legally convicted of a crime before information can be acted on? (Rhetorical Question)

It is public knowledge that more than 50 women have come forward accusing Cosby of sexual assault and the like. In many if not most of these cases, illegal drugs are involved. Cosby is on record to giving at least one woman illegal drugs prior to sex while under oath. With this much information, it is safe to conclude that Cosby is at minimum a pervert that used his position and power to prey on women for sex using illegal drugs.

Until recently, it appeared that Cosby would not be charged with any crimes due to statute of limitations. Should the public simply ignore the information if there is never a criminal trial.and a convection?

First, let me be clear. This thread and my remarks aren't especially about Mr. Cosby or the women he allegedly mistreated/raped. They, Mr. Cosby, his case, and the circumstances around it are the vehicles, the foils, that I've used to illustrate the theme of this thread, which is the idea of "presumed innocence before conviction" and the role of that concept in our society.

Blue:
If the allegation is one of criminal wrongdoing, mostly yes. "Mostly" because the information will likely have to be use in deciding whether to arrest and charge someone, in making bail determinations, and so on. Do I think the public in general should use the fact of one's having been accused and never brought to trial to inform their point of view about an individual? I think the public in general should not do that at all. I think the public should give the person the presumption of being innocent until the accused person is shown not to be innocent.

Off Topic:
What happens specifically with regard to Mr. Cosby, the woman whose case will come to trial in Philly, or the 50 odd other women who've claimed Mr. Cosby raped/abused them is something I care about on in a passing, abstract way. If/when he's convicted, I'd be more than happy to form an opinion about the women, Mr. Cosby, the circumstances between them, and discuss the ethics and morals of his actions and whatever else that one might accurately infer from a conviction.

It is hardly unheard of that people get wrongly accused of crimes/acts.

• 10 Egregious Cases of White People Falsely Accusing Black People of Committing Crimes - Atlanta Blackstar
  
• 10 People Who Were Wrongfully Accused of Heinous Crimes - Listverse
  
• Researchers: More than 2,000 false convictions in past 23 years
  
• How Many Rape Reports Are False?

I realise that 40+ accusations is a lot of accusations. I also realize that many of the 50+ women failed to a claim when the event occurred. That suggests to me that I should be somewhat skeptical about most of their claims' veracity.

I don't know about you, but if someone raped me, I'd have something to say to the cops the very next day, not some year or years, let alone decades, later. At the very least, there'd be an official police report with my statement in it. Where are those statements from these women? Do you realize what we are being asked to believe? We are being asked to believe that Mr. Cosby raped some 50 women and only one of them (apparently) filed a police report.

One of Mr. Cosby's accusers didn't file a police report, but did tell her story to the National Enquirer. Another sold hers to the Daily Mail. And yet another sold hers to TMZ, which also will pay for stories. That's 25% of the first 12 women listed who opted to sell their story, years after the fact, rather than file a police report at the time of the alleged events.

To me, that only one woman (apparently) filed a report further militates for Mr. Cosby being due the presumption of innocence before his trial and conviction, if he is convicted. The thing with me is that I think that of everyone accused of something. It's not just Mr. Cosby. And that's the point of this thread: the failure of our society to give people the presumption of innocence until all the relevant facts have been heard and judged in court. Every American citizen, be they famous and rich or unheard of and poor, deserves to be presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. That is part of the American way and I am willing to live by that; heck I applaud it is part of our national ethos, or at least that it's intended to be.

 

[JoeMoma]

So would you be okay with your young adult daughter having Crosby as a mentor for her potential career in acting and entertainment. I'm sure Crosby has a lot of connections that could help her get started.