A certain amusement here

This is partly linguistic. And partly fashion.

Harvey Weinstein trial: Jury finds Hollywood producer guilty of rape

Well sorta. He was found guilty of something called rape – rape in the third degree. Which isn’t “rape rape” and isn’t rape perhaps in the English sense of the word.

One reason we know this being that the sentence is 1 to 4 years.

It’s the “criminal sex act” which carries the much heavier possible sentence. He was actually cleared on the charge of rape, as in “rape, rape”.

This is, as I say, partly linguistic. American legal terms use rape far more widely than the English language does. But it’s also fashion. That he’s the evilest man who ever walked etc is simply known and true in certain sectors. There is an implication of this too. I guarantee there will be a Guardian column after sentencing comparing his sentence for “third degree rape and a criminal sex act”, comparing it to rapey rape sentences and demanding to know why he was treated so leniently.

27 thoughts on “A certain amusement here”

  1. I haven’t looked into the case so am wondering what actual evidence they had, was it she said he said or film/recordings/photos/witnesses?

    Was there a verbal contract? I will give you acting roles and job opportunities and you will spread your legs.

  2. Bloke in Germany in the Free State of Bavaria

    M’Lud will know, if one asks for a bunch of non charged offences to be “taken into consideration” does that impact sentencing? What does it actually mean, in fact?

  3. New York Penal Code.
    Section 130.25 Rape in the third degree Penal (PEN).

    A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:

    1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;

    2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or

    3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person’s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent.

    Rape in the third degree is a class E felony.

    In this case, clause 3 might fit?

  4. TiCs, Mr In G (itFSoB), occur where the recently convicted wrong ‘un tells the coppers he dun sum uva stuff. The coppers check it out to see if that uva stuff happened. If it did, they draw up a sort of list, itemising who, what, where, and when. The wrong ‘un then signs the list and it is given to the judge when he comes up for sentence on the most recent matter.

    The rozzers thereby get to say “crime solved! trebles all round!” The sentencing judge then bungs on a very modest uplift to the sentence he was going to pass for the most recent offence, very modest irrespective of the number of TiCs. Credit accrues to the miscreant for having ‘fessed up.

    The ones I saw most frequently were for burglary, theft and handling. TiC lists running to fifty or so further offences were common. The sentencing uplift was measured in months – somewhere between six and 18, I’d say – I’m going from memory and did not keep tabs on it particularly. It was just another one of those frauds on the public.

  5. Sex was traded on the open market for fame and money. Next thing the lady on the street corner will call it sexual assault. She’ll lean in the car window and say “Hi mister, how’d you like to do 1 to 4?”

  6. I’m not fan of Weinstein but I do have concerns over the safety of his conviction here. He’s been cleared of the serious stuff, so it comes down to the issue of consent in a couple of cases. And these go back many many years – why didn’t the complaint come in right away? If there were two or three ladies involved I would be deeply suspicious that they were ganging up to tap his for some hush money, but with so many having spoken out they can’t all be on the take can they? But in any case, how on earth can a jury convict (beyond reasonable doubt) on the issue of consent at all – it surely comes down to his word and her word – and that can never be beyond reasonable doubt.

  7. Beyond Reasonable: “But in any case, how on earth can a jury convict (beyond reasonable doubt) on the issue of consent at all – it surely comes down to his word and her word – and that can never be beyond reasonable doubt.”

    It’s a Brave New World, isn’t it? Or rather, a very old one (Salem Witch Trials).

  8. Am I alone in wondering whether it may have weighed with the jury that he is a remarkably ugly chap?

    Sure. Who’d complain about being raped by Brad Pitt?

    I’m not too concerned about the safety of the conviction. The more Hollywood pervs are banged up the better. Especially better for aspiring actors who aren’t prepared to suck off some old horror to get ahead. Hopefully the outrage machine and its lawyers will hoover up some more rapists and nonces, because Hollywood will be full of them. Every one a ‘liberal’ too. Maybe after a dozen have been humiliated and banged up, Hollywood will realise it has no place lecturing the average citizen.

    All this is fantasy though. Weinstein was thrown to the wolves because his star has faded and no-one likes him. His conviction will be used to pretend the seediness of Hollywood has been addressed and the shits will carry on as before.

  9. Indeed, Mr le Jour. That’s the point about the rozzers checking up, because most of these villains are off their chumps when offending so the idea their memories are going to be any good is apparently nonsense. Nevertheless, the degree of correlation between those memories and the rozzer’s subsequent verification always surprised me.

  10. This is just the American way of justice:

    Charge him with multiple offences in the hope that his lawyers will get him to cop for one or two and failing that, hope that the jury will look at the list and say, “Well he probably didn’t do this or that, but he looks a bit of a wrong ‘un and they wouldn’t have charged him at all if he didn’t do something so let’s find him guilty of a couple of lesser charges.”

    This is how US federal prosecutors have 99% conviction rates. (Although they argue that they only go to court with slam dunk cases.)

    Of course if he’d been a friend of Trump he’d have been found guilty of all the charges and more and would now be doing life in solitary confinement.

  11. “Napolitano said New York prosecutors wanted to “demonstrate a new tool” used by California prosecutors to probe into Weinstein’s past in order to seek “uncharged and unconvicted criminal behavior” in order to enhance the charges and Weinstein’s penalty.”

    Use public opinion to convict.

    Examining the accuser’s past is banned. I hope New York has seen that California’s examining the accused’s alleged past is wrong.

  12. Bloke in North Dorset

    MC,

    The more Hollywood pervs are banged up the better. Especially better for aspiring actors who aren’t prepared to suck off some old horror to get ahead.

    There’s an argument to be made that those who don’t use the casting couch to get ahead are the real losers, they may well have been better actors so a career forgone and possibly the paying public missing out on even better films.

  13. Reasonable doubt applies. Complainants should have about three days, a week at the outside, to lodge a complaint with the police. Not with the press, not with a civil suit.. There is no fair trial after years in which no complaint was made and no physical evidence or witness exists. But in this case it’s OK, because the witness/complainants were credible on the stand. They are actresses, FFS.

  14. The only “crime” Weinstein committed was making offers to various women which they had the option to refuse. Several –inc Paltrow–claim they did turn him down. Since she has enjoyed a very successful career it seems that he either didn’t make or didn’t act on the old “you’ll never work in this town again” threat. So he is guilty of nothing so far as I can see.

    Walking in naked was mentioned. Well it is uncouth–on a par with dic pics–but there is no law against being nudie in his own hotel room. Unless he advanced on these women and/or put himself between them and the door he is guilty only of unsavoury foolishness.

  15. Is he one of those Hollywood creeps who has always supported the Dems and sundry right-on causes?

    If he is, hurray for being hoist by his own petard.

  16. I’m only amazed no one else here hasn’t done this. Oh well….

    Last night I was dreaming
    I was locked in a prison cell
    When I woke up I was screaming
    Calling out your name

    Whoa and the judge and the jury
    They all put the blame on me
    They wouldn’t go for my story
    They wouldn’t hear my plea

    Only you can set me free
    ‘Cause I’m guilty
    Guilty as a creep can be
    Come on baby can’t you see
    I stand accused of love in the third degree
    Guilty
    Of love in the third degree

  17. What I found so bizzaire was a comment by one of the accusers:
    “When I saw his naked body I thought he was deformed”

    Has she never seen a real life nakkid male before? That is what real live males look like. Has she been given unreal expectations from fantasy media portrials?

  18. Is he one of those Hollywood creeps who has always supported the Dems and sundry right-on causes?

    There’s a clip doing the rounds on Twitter showing Mrs Obama eulogising him. Watch now before it mysteriously vanishes.

  19. I feel sorry for Weinstein’s victims. We need to remember sex crimes are evil, and vile. I hope Weinstein reforms as a person, and accepts his punishment.

  20. Recall that the fact he liked to walk around hotel room naked was brought up in interviews with assistants so surely they consented by taking the job.
    Maybe nurses should complain about encountering nudity in their job?

  21. The Five’ reacts to Harvey Weinstein’s conviction
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTzI3gVWWuI

    Disappointing Fox supporting: women are rape victims for voluntarily having sex they didn’t want for money when they could have declined.

    Waters seemed uncomfortable and Gutfeld angry at Fox decision to side with “voluntary victims”

    Weinstein’s legal team ‘surprised’ by guilty verdict
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dDF3cjvpeQ

    If Dianne Abbot offers me £1M for sex and I agree – even though I really, really don’t want to – has she raped me?

    Fox in other news equally bad:
    https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/23/laurence-fox-sees-famous-cousins-dragged-controversial-comments-backlash-freddie-spat-trolls-pick-emilia-12289075/
    https://www.google.com/search?q=laurence+fox&rlz=1C1AOHY_enGB805GB805&source=lnms&tbm=nws

    @dearieme

    He was average, not ugly, 20-30 years ago; jury looked at him now

    @Kevin B, Gamecock

    +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *