Fat Albert goes to jail

[dogmush]

The second jury convicted Bill Cosby today.  He faces 30 years in jail if they max him.

I wonder if the number of other accusations can be considered in sentencing?


https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/comedian-bill-cosby-convicted-of-drugging-and-molesting-woman

[BobR]

Will the Marine Corps have to rename the support aircraft for the US Navy Flight Demonstration Team something else now?

Asking for a friend. 

bob

[Hawkmoon]

This time around, it only took the jury 14 hours, over two days, to find him guilty on three charges.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BILL_COSBY_PAOL-?SITE=TXMCA&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2018-04-26-14-21-06

Sad. I liked him when he was doing Jello commercials.

[Fly320s]

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=57295.0

[RoadKingLarry]

To put a political spin on it...

All this started nto too long after Cosby made disparaging comments about "black culture" and had the temerity to suggest that single parent/multiple baby mama's and thug life was not a path to a happy and productive life.

[Angel Eyes]

[Perd Hapley]

To put a political spin on it...

All this started nto too long after Cosby made disparaging comments about "black culture" and had the temerity to suggest that single parent/multiple baby mama's and thug life was not a path to a happy and productive life.

Can you show some sources for that? I seem to recall he's been saying stuff like that for years and years.

[Fly320s]

I’m curious what evidence the DA had or if the whole case was based on she said/he said.

[dogmush]

I believe it was a case of "he said, all 6 of them said."

According to the NYT, the judge allowed 5 other accusers to testify this time.

[TechMan]

Merged Duplicate Threads.

[Pb]

To put a political spin on it...

All this started nto too long after Cosby made disparaging comments about "black culture" and had the temerity to suggest that single parent/multiple baby mama's and thug life was not a path to a happy and productive life.

I don't know about that but.... Cosby is another left wing ahole.  He has campaigned for Hillary Clinton.

And here's this bit of stupidity from him:

"this Republican Party is not the Republican Party of 1863, of Abraham Lincoln, abolitionists and slavery, is not good. I think it's important for us to look at the underlying part of it. What is the value of it? Is it that some people are angry because my people no longer want to work for free?"

Yeah Cosby!  Blame slavery on the party and ended it, while voting for the party that started a whole war to preserve it!

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah Cosby!  Blame slavery on the party and ended it, while voting for the party that started a whole war to preserve it!

 

[Pb]

 

Oh, should not have said that?!?   

[just Warren]

If he's guilty then I don't mind him being found guilty but was there prosecutorial shenanigans involved?

If so, then that needs to be looked at.

[Scout26]

[bedlamite]

Can you show some sources for that? I seem to recall he's been saying stuff like that for years and years.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/04/how-cosbys-pound-cake-speech-helped-lead-to-his-downfall/559049/

[Perd Hapley]

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/04/how-cosbys-pound-cake-speech-helped-lead-to-his-downfall/559049/

Point taken.

[Scout26]

[Hawkmoon]

I’m curious what evidence the DA had or if the whole case was based on she said/he said.

The original DA, who decided not to prosecute in 2004, said he believed that Cosby was guilty but he didn't think he had enough to get a conviction. It wasn't until 2014 (I think) that a judge unsealed Cosby's deposition from the civil lawsuit in 2005. In the deposition, Cosby admitted to using quaaludes and other pills to help him score with the females. When the new DA saw that, he felt he had enough to win a conviction.

Turns out he was right. So basically it was the deposition (Cosby's own words) that made the difference.

In the previous trial, which ended in a mistrial, the prosecution was only allowed to use one other alleged victim. This time, in addition to Constand they were allowed five other victims -- out of a list of about 60 who ALL wanted to testify. That might have made a difference.

[Firethorn]

Turns out he was right. So basically it was the deposition (Cosby's own words) that made the difference.

The extra decade of changing values may have made a difference as well.

[Hawkmoon]

I saw some speculation that he'll probably be sentenced to have the three sentences run concurrently. That brings up a question that has bothered me for a long time:

WHAT'S THE POINT? I know that perhaps more often than not multiple sentences are set to run concurrently rather than consecutively, and that concept has always bothered me. How is that fair? Dude # 1 robs one bank and gets caught. He gets sent up the river for (let's say) 20 years, eleigible for parole after 10. Dude #2 robs five different banks, in five different towns, on five different days before he gets caught. He gets sentenced to 20 years, eligible for parole after 10, for each count -- but they sentences run concurrently. So the guy who committed five crimes effectively gets the same sentence as the guy who committed only one.

It's like bargain day at the supermarket: "Buy one, get four free!"

I must be missing something in thinking this is wrong. What am I missing?

[Firethorn]

1.  Prison is expensive.  It costs the state resources, not the prisoner, who gets them.  Why should we give you more free *expletive deleted*it for doing more crimes?
2.  Both prisoners probably have the same exact thing wrong with them needing fixing, and fixing that takes the same amount of time.
3.  Usually, the 2nd would get more time, as the multiple robberies would end up as counting for "enhancers" for the subsequent robberies in the chain, giving it a longer sentence. 5-7-10-20-30 year type stuff.

[Angel Eyes]

[Perd Hapley]

1.  Prison is expensive.  It costs the state resources, not the prisoner, who gets them.  Why should we give you more free *expletive deleted*it for doing more crimes?
2.  Both prisoners probably have the same exact thing wrong with them needing fixing, and fixing that takes the same amount of time.
3.  Usually, the 2nd would get more time, as the multiple robberies would end up as counting for "enhancers" for the subsequent robberies in the chain, giving it a longer sentence. 5-7-10-20-30 year type stuff.

Argument #1 you'll want to reconsider.

[JN01]

I saw some speculation that he'll probably be sentenced to have the three sentences run concurrently. That brings up a question that has bothered me for a long time:

WHAT'S THE POINT? I know that perhaps more often than not multiple sentences are set to run concurrently rather than consecutively, and that concept has always bothered me. How is that fair? Dude # 1 robs one bank and gets caught. He gets sent up the river for (let's say) 20 years, eleigible for parole after 10. Dude #2 robs five different banks, in five different towns, on five different days before he gets caught. He gets sentenced to 20 years, eligible for parole after 10, for each count -- but they sentences run concurrently. So the guy who committed five crimes effectively gets the same sentence as the guy who committed only one.

It's like bargain day at the supermarket: "Buy one, get four free!"

I must be missing something in thinking this is wrong. What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that life in general, and the criminal justice system in particular, is not fair.