The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Justice! [Harvey Weinstein]

Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction has been overturned. The Court of Appeal held that he did not receive a fair trial.

He remains in prison for his remaining conviction.

www.bbc.co.uk

Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction overturned by New York court

New York court says Hollywood mogul, who remains in prison on other charges, did not receive a fair trial.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
A good example of how judicial error can allow someone (rich white guy) to go free on a technicality.
 
The decision to order a retrial has stirred up something of a hornets nest. They seem to think that whatever they say should be believed unquestioningly and that a fair trial is a luxury.

www.bbc.co.uk

Harvey Weinstein: Ashley Judd leads backlash against quashed rape conviction

The actress tells BBC News survivors feel betrayed after a new rape trial is ordered for Harvey Weinstein.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
The retrial is because of judicial error. Not testimony.
 
rareboy said:
The retrial is because of judicial error. Not testimony.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Yesterday's BBC piece said that the judge "erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes".
 
But it shouldn't be inferred that the testimony given was somehow false. That is what too many people seem to be pulling from this.

Just one step away from the 'Bitches deserved it' defense of a known sexual predator.
 
"The 4–3 ruling turned largely on the original judge’s decision to let into court evidence of alleged crimes other than the ones for which jurors had been asked to assess Weinstein’s guilt or innocence.'

"But Thursday’s ruling was, to many legal spectators, unsurprising. The idea that juries should consider only the crimes charged in a given case, and that evidence of other bad acts should be excluded, is a foundational principle of criminal law, designed to protect defendants from the unfair presumption of guilt."

--Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker

A headline in search of clicks beyond the case at hand:

www.newyorker.com

What Harvey Weinstein’s Overturned Conviction Means for Donald Trump’s Trial

The legal issue behind Weinstein’s successful appeal is also at the heart of the former President’s hush-money case.
www.newyorker.com www.newyorker.com
 
Latimer said:
"The 4–3 ruling turned largely on the original judge’s decision to let into court evidence of alleged crimes other than the ones for which jurors had been asked to assess Weinstein’s guilt or innocence.'

"But Thursday’s ruling was, to many legal spectators, unsurprising. The idea that juries should consider only the crimes charged in a given case, and that evidence of other bad acts should be excluded, is a foundational principle of criminal law, designed to protect defendants from the unfair presumption of guilt."
Click to expand...
Harvey had cemented his reputation as a first rate scumbag long before the rape thing.

Personally I believe people with reprehensible character should be punished for it.

I'd love to clone a whole army of Hannibal Lecters and let them loose in America.
 
Peloso said:
Harvey had cemented his reputation as a first rate scumbag long before the rape thing.

. . . .
Click to expand...

'cemented his reputation' suggests that his victims knew about him before they put themselves in harm's way. Did they?
 
Kahaih said:
'cemented his reputation' suggests that his victims knew about him before they put themselves in harm's way. Did they?
Click to expand...
One does have to wonder how, if his crimes were so extensive, nobody knew. Maybe they were ignored because the victims were desperate to climb the greasy pole of showbusiness
 
You know, grand theft auto is a crime no matter how you look at it, but I have little sympathy for a jackass who leaves the keys in the ignition and the doors to their brand new Escalade unlocked and unattended in the parking lot of a sleazy Walmart.
 
Kahaih said:
'cemented his reputation' suggests that his victims knew about him before they put themselves in harm's way. Did they?
Click to expand...
I was referring to his business and personal dealings apart from the rapey stuff.
 
Harvey Weintein suffered from an acute genital infection known as Fournier's gangrene.

Look it up and then have a think about what that might do to a man's sense of self-esteem and what it might encourage him to do to regain some sense of it in the face of ridicule and humiliation.

Whilst his deformity was used to help identify him in the trial, few people considered it might have been a factor in his actions, or possibly in the responses by the complainants in retrospect imagining him as a monster.

Later in the trial, photos of Weinstein were shown to the jury rather than on large screen so as not to 'humiliate' the defendant, but I would suggest Mr. Weinstein had been subjected to much humiliation before then. Monsters are usually created, not born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top