Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. This is still a good step in the right direction though.
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
34 points (68.5% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
5229 readers
23 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [[email protected]](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: [email protected] [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I didn’t look into it, but I’d say a court/jury declaring him as not-guilty is a bit more reliable than a bunch of pitchfork hungry folks on social media.
No, basic societal conventions do mean that someone should be considered innocent until proven guilty though. Mob justice isn't a good progression for our society whether it's torches and pitchforks or social media cancellations.
The hell? You're happy he got off on a technicality for a host of assaults so your conscience can be spared?! #priorities
He didn't get off on a technicality, a jury found him not guilty.
Not guilty means there's some doubt, no matter how small. The jury could be 99% sure he did it and (by the book) he should be found not guilty. It's almost impossible to prove something like this, so stuff like this frequently gets not guilty verdicts regardless of whether they actually did it or not.
Not guilty means not guilty. Thats kind of how our justice system works.
It’s a bit more reliable than a pitchfork mob on social media looking to fulfill their confirmation bias on someone that actually could be innocent.
Literally not how the justice system works lol. You have to prove them guilty beyond reasonable doubt (surely you've heard this phrase before), which means 100% proof. If you commit a crime and there is ANY doubt, you will get a not guilty verdict. You say it yourself in this reply, that he could be innocent. Nobody is arguing that. He could also be guilty and we may never know for sure.
You have to prove them guilty beyond reasonable doubt (surely you’ve heard this phrase before), which means 100% proof
That's not true, because "beyond reasonable doubt" is usually interpreted very differently.
You do not need 100% proof. Otherwise convictions would never happen.
To stay with sexual assault cases, the defendant could always argue that Consensual Non Consent (Couples setting limits beforehand, and then after that acting like one party does not consent) was part of their kink, and happening at the time.
No eyewitnesses, Video, or even written statements could completely rule out the possibility of (increasingly elaborate) consensual non-consent.
And the same goes for anything else. Bank robbery? Well, I was hired to test their security. No Idea why they are now fucking me over, they probably don't want to pay.
Murder? I was told the weapon was a toy, and we were acting out a stage-play!
anyway, you just need to proof beyond doubt that seems reasonable. Most of my examples above wouldn't meet that requirement, depending on further circumstances.
There are 2 burdens of proof in trials, 1 for civil trials, and 1 for criminal trials. Civil trials require a burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and it is much lower than the burden of proof required for criminal trials, which is "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The burden of proof you are describing for Kevin Spacey's criminal trial is actually "beyond a shadow of a doubt", which essentially requires reliable eyewitnesses or a smoking gun, as they say.
That said, Spacey also defeated a civil trial in the US last October for a different set of accusations, so there is that 🤷
I can't claim to know the truth in he said/he said situations like these, but common sense would indicate that there's probably some truth to multiple accusations of impropriety. Victims often don't opt to speak out publicly and go to court unless they think they can win and scam artists are rare.
You clearly didn't do a web search for the burdens of proof in the UK court system. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the name for the burden of proof in criminal cases.
Yes, that's the beauty of a fair and independent judiciary. While we're in a community that deals with cinama, may I advise you watch again Twelve angry men?
Is there any actual evidence, he actually did all those things (without consent)?
Is there ever any actual evidence? Isn't that precisely why sexual predators are able to get away with it so frequently?
Without evidence, there’s nothing. It would mean, you, me and anyone else can be charged for “sexual predatory behavior” and prisoned for years. While we did not do anything at all.
Not-guilty until proven is a thing.
Also do you realize what this does to someone who’s not guilty? Wrecked career, wrecked mental health and reputation to the ground.
There's a lot of room between a court not having enough evidence to convict someone of a crime and that person having done zero wrongdoing, and society in general does a very bad job at navigating that grey space.
Being cleared of charges doesn't mean someone isn't a bad person. At the same time, simply being accused doesn't mean that someone is a bad person. There's worlds of nuance here, but this is the internet - the place where nuance goes to die - so I don't bother having any expectations at this point.
Yes exactly. I am a weak and shallow human being who likes his movies and TV shows and hates having to think twice about bad people doing bad things. But everyone seems to consider that my position is unacceptable so I will go back to hating Spacey like everyone else because you know, I am weak and shallow.
Based
Spacey's had a bad rep in the industry for his behavior for awhile - he was a well known bully on set, and it was a running joke in LA in the 2000s that if you're young and male, you don't get in a cab with Kevin. That being said, I'm not surprised the verdict came down this way - male sexual assault victims are marginalized to the point of invisibility, and mocked when they make a stand.
I have no doubt that he's guilty of what he was accused of and suspect there are probably more victims. The results of this trial speak more to his wealth and power than to his innocence.
was this the only case against him?
I doubt it's the last we will see. These are the Brittish assault accusations.
In the US the Nantucket one was thrown out of court but there was also whatever went on that caused him to have to pay for breach of contract on House of Cards.
view more: next ›