Page 8 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 9:19 am

naturalplastic wrote:
ironpony wrote:
demeus wrote:
collectoritis wrote:
That's the way it is in US , if you've got enough green you can pay yourself out of jail


And that is the problem. I am not upset that the system worked for Bill Crosby (or OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony). I am upset that it does not work this way for all people.


But they were not able to bribe the juries though.


Thats not the point.

You dont have to do something outright illegal to buy justice. Just be rich enough to outbid the taxpayer by hiring a "dream team" of better lawyers to outgun the local DAs (ala OJ). OJ didnt "bribe" anyone, but he got off, even though few today doubt his guilt. The system is designed to protect the innocent - but for that very reason - the system can be manipulated to rescue the guilty- if the guilty are rich. Or even not so rich (like Casey Anthony).


But that was the intentions of our founding fathers from the beginning. Unfortunately, that ideal is not realized for most people.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 9:39 am

ironpony wrote:
demeus wrote:
If you watch The Social Network, you will realize the whole movie is various civil court case depositions. In the clip below, Mark explains that the is under oath and to lie, he would have to perjury himself.



The penalties for perjury in Pennsylvania are a $15,000 fine and 7 years in prison.

When a civil case is started, after the summons, complaint, and answer phase, is what is called the discovery phase where the parties on both sides are required to lay all their evidence on the table to figure out what the issues are that the judge needs to consider prior to trial. Part of discovery is a process called deposition where each possible witness to the case, as well as the plaintiff and defendant, are required to state the facts surrounding the case under oath. These depositions are usually done in a law office or court meeting room and rarely is a judge involved. They are recorded and the attorneys for both parties are present. The attorney for the party who is not going to present the witness is the one usually asking the questions and the party presenting the witness can object but objections are usually heard in trial or if the side presenting the witness wants the deposition thrown out. These depositions are done under oath so the penalties for perjury do apply. It is the same as if you are testifying on the stand in a real trial.

Now, even in a civil case, you are not required to incriminate yourself in a criminal case in a civil case deposition. If you ever hear of people testifying to Congress, if they think they could be implicated in a crime, they usually take the 5th amendment. The same can happen in a civil case deposition. You are not committing perjury by taking the 5th amendment (otherwise, that would render that particular right useless). However, if criminal charges are dropped, the person can then be forced to testify. There is a SCOTUS case from the 1910s regarding this issue but I cannot find it for the life of me right now.

So what happened is that as discovery was going on in the civil trial, the attorney for the victim discussed with the Old DA that the case was not going well because the evidence they had might not convince a judge or jury, even at the preponderance of evidence level and that they needed Bill Crosby to admit this acts. However, as long as the statute of limitation on the possible criminal charge, Bill Crosby could simply use the 5th amendment and not admit to anything. The old DA then informed the public that he would not charge Bill Crosby for any crime related to the civil case. That removed the reason for using the 5th amendment and thus, Bill Crosby was forced to testify to his actions under oath and under penalty of perjury (so he could have been charged with a crime if he lied). The 5th amendment does not protect you in civil cases, only criminal (just as the 1st amendment protections on free speech only protect you from government action, you employer can still fire you).

So that is why Bill Crosby testified against himself (probably upon legal advice). If he had not told the truth, he would have committed another crime which he could have been charged with, even in the absence of the original charges.


But since they didn't seem to have any proof on Cosby, they wouldn't know if he perjured himself or not, since they wouldn't have any evidence to counter it. So he could have just lied and said it never happened, and they wouldn't be able to prove he was committing perjury.


Let's review the tape from the Casey Anthony trial. She was found not guilty of 1st degree murder but was found guilty of lying to the police (obstructing justice I believe). That means that the jury thought that she committed the murder but the state could not prove 1st degree capital murder (mainly it was due to prosecution overreach and shoddy police work) but they did believe that she lied to the police. They found that because for the 2nd charge, all that had to be proven was that Casey Anthony lied to the police, whether she committed the act or not.

In the case of Bill Crosby, if he lied at his deposition, all the DA would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Bill Crosby lied, not that he committed rape. The DA can then bring in the evidence about the rape but that would only be for the jury to consider if Crosby lied or not, not whether he committed the rape. It would have been an very easy charge to prove based on the evidence. Trust me, his lawyers would have told Bill Crosby to take the 5th if he could in the civil deposition.

There was a case in the SCOTUS years ago that dealt with this very issue (I think it was based on a contempt of court charge). I cannot find it right now but I remember reading about it at some point.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,885
Location: temperate zone

05 Jul 2021, 9:41 am

demeus wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
ironpony wrote:
demeus wrote:
collectoritis wrote:
That's the way it is in US , if you've got enough green you can pay yourself out of jail


And that is the problem. I am not upset that the system worked for Bill Crosby (or OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony). I am upset that it does not work this way for all people.


But they were not able to bribe the juries though.


Thats not the point.

You dont have to do something outright illegal to buy justice. Just be rich enough to outbid the taxpayer by hiring a "dream team" of better lawyers to outgun the local DAs (ala OJ). OJ didnt "bribe" anyone, but he got off, even though few today doubt his guilt. The system is designed to protect the innocent - but for that very reason - the system can be manipulated to rescue the guilty- if the guilty are rich. Or even not so rich (like Casey Anthony).


But that was the intentions of our founding fathers from the beginning. Unfortunately, that ideal is not realized for most people.

Thats what I said. The system is good in one way, but it is flawed in another way.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 10:10 am

naturalplastic wrote:
demeus wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
ironpony wrote:
demeus wrote:
collectoritis wrote:
That's the way it is in US , if you've got enough green you can pay yourself out of jail


And that is the problem. I am not upset that the system worked for Bill Crosby (or OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony). I am upset that it does not work this way for all people.


But they were not able to bribe the juries though.


Thats not the point.

You dont have to do something outright illegal to buy justice. Just be rich enough to outbid the taxpayer by hiring a "dream team" of better lawyers to outgun the local DAs (ala OJ). OJ didnt "bribe" anyone, but he got off, even though few today doubt his guilt. The system is designed to protect the innocent - but for that very reason - the system can be manipulated to rescue the guilty- if the guilty are rich. Or even not so rich (like Casey Anthony).


But that was the intentions of our founding fathers from the beginning. Unfortunately, that ideal is not realized for most people.

Thats what I said. The system is good in one way, but it is flawed in another way.


You are right but let's not be made that the system worked for Bill Crosby. Let's be made that it does not work for the general public. There are issues such as DA overreached which needs to be reined in.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,621
Location: Stendec

05 Jul 2021, 1:07 pm

C-O-S-B-Y, not "Crosby".

:roll:


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,431
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

05 Jul 2021, 3:48 pm

Fnord wrote:
C-O-S-B-Y, not "Crosby".

:roll:


I keep making that mistake.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 639

05 Jul 2021, 4:05 pm

kokopelli wrote:
Fnord wrote:
C-O-S-B-Y, not "Crosby".

:roll:


I keep making that mistake.

Same for me.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,890
Location: Adelaide, Australia

05 Jul 2021, 7:44 pm

For a minute I thought Bing Crosby had a guilty conscious.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,153

05 Jul 2021, 11:42 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
For a minute I thought Bing Crosby had a guilty conscious.


Would be ironic if he was :lol:

David Crosby from Crosby Stills and Nash also breathing a sigh of relief.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,260
Location: canada

06 Jul 2021, 12:53 am

Would the justice system be better if there was no 5th Amendment, and you were required to tell what happened in a criminal case, just as much as a civil one?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,885
Location: temperate zone

06 Jul 2021, 1:58 am

ironpony wrote:
Would the justice system be better if there was no 5th Amendment, and you were required to tell what happened in a criminal case, just as much as a civil one?

Hmmmm...

The purpose of the amendment is to prevent torture. Like they would do in the 1600s. And it seems to me that it is still needed to put a break on the power of the state against the rights of the individual. You shouldnt be forced to incriminate yourself, even though there are individuals who need to be incriminated.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,260
Location: canada

06 Jul 2021, 2:02 am

Oh but the 5th amendment doesn't apply to civil cases, and it was said before that Cosby was still forced to tell the truth. He wasn't tortured into doing it. So couldn't it apply to criminal law, too, where there is no 5th amendment and they are forced to testify, but not with torture, like Cosby was?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,153

06 Jul 2021, 2:04 am

naturalplastic wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Would the justice system be better if there was no 5th Amendment, and you were required to tell what happened in a criminal case, just as much as a civil one?

Hmmmm...

The purpose of the amendment is to prevent torture. Like they would do in the 1600s. And it seems to me that it is still needed to put a break on the power of the state against the rights of the individual. You shouldnt be forced to incriminate yourself, even though there are individuals who need to be incriminated.


Oh like a legal protection against a repeat of the witch trials at Salem? I'm sure the poor ladies burned at the stake at the dawn of American settlement incriminated themselves being offered a choice of being drowned whereby they admitted to something they didn't do after which they were duly burned.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,260
Location: canada

06 Jul 2021, 2:11 am

Well there is no 5th amendment in civil law and no one seems to care and raise a stink about it, so why would it be so much worse to not have it in criminal law either?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,885
Location: temperate zone

06 Jul 2021, 2:28 am

ironpony wrote:
Well there is no 5th amendment in civil law and no one seems to care and raise a stink about it, so why would it be so much worse to not have it in criminal law either?


Because its civil law, and its not criminal law, obviously.

The burden of evidence is less than in criminal law, and the outcome is less serious. Just money. The defendant doesnt get the slammer, nor get hanged, as in criminal law.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,260
Location: canada

06 Jul 2021, 2:30 am

But loosing a lot of money is still a big deal to a lot of people so how is being forced to tell the truth worse in criminal law therefore?