Memories of the 28th Century

I have never met Bill Cosby, nor have I been a fan of him as a performer, but over time I have gotten the general impression that he is a reasonable sort of person. I have never met (to the best of my knowledge) any of the women who have accused Cosby of sexual misconduct; not knowing anything about them I have never developed any opinions of them as people or of their veracity. I am also acquainted with the legal principle that in the laws of the the United States of America people are considered innocent until proven guilty. That principle has not been applied to Mr. Cosby, but it should be.

In addition, I wonder about accusations made decades after the alleged fact. If Cosby did rape or otherwise sexually misuse those women, then they should have come forth with their accusations in a timely manner. At this point they look like they are trying to make him pay them off; it’s called extortion. If there were any real charges to be brought, then the passage of time makes it much less likely that any evidence can be found, and exculpatory evidence is also more difficult to find. The accusations go back thirty year, or so, and people who might have known something relevant may have died in that time.

Those accusations will go where they will go, but the secondary damage is worse in some ways. People, companies, and institutions that had relationships with Cosby have dumped him based on some words. It appears that Cosby is taking the high road, but he may have grounds for suit against people who cancelled contracts based on those accusations, and he has grounds to sue for economic damages anyone who has made a false accusation that has led to any losses.

I didn't start writing this because of Bill Cosby, but his situation reminded me that this is a major issue.
Innocent until proven guilty, one of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

A guy I know was in jail for several months because of some impolite words followed by fists. Whether he or the other guy was criminal is inconsequential. This guy was in jail for months, because he couldn't make bail. The bail was set high enough to keep a poor man in jail, as if he were serving time for a crime. The prosecutor decided to try to make a major case for some reason, so a little fight with hands only got him a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, because the other guy fell against a curb. The charges have been reduced, but there still hasn't been a trial, and he'll never get back the time that he spent in jail, because someone forgot the purpose of bail, to ensure someone will appear.

Regardless of what happened on the street that day, someone has spent more than six months in jail for a charge that has not yet been adjudicated, and if he will be found guilty the sentence probably will be no more than the time he has served. Cosby is in worse shape, because there may never be any trials on any of the accusations; although he may decide to sue for defamation of character. But he is been punished by associates, employers, and others for acts that are completely unproven.

Let's remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Post Script: The charges against that person were reduced to simple assault & battery, and he was released. There was no trial, so he served time for nothing at all. If the judge gavelled through a bench trial for A&B and sentenced him to time served it would have almost made sense.


http://billcosby.com/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/b...e-gift-n288461
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...ernal-paternam
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/dr-huxtable-mr-hyde/

The burden of Proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence