Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

But why do we abandon it when discussing Reese Witherspoon or Hope Solo? Or Jackie? Why do the specific consequences of criminal convictions alter the calculus? It feels patronizing.

(And I share your instinct.)

 

"No doubt he did what she alleged -- assault or rape ... We met with her several times but at some point the defense attorney did some digging and found she called police close to the rape ... contacted the police after the incident and said nothing about the rape and we didn't know about the original contact with police. ... I thought she was a good witness ... my general impression is that if he didn't do exactly what she said then it was something along those lines. They had a dysfunctional relationship ... stormy moments ... His second lawyer found the police report with initial contact with police where she doesn't mention rape -- he said it was a game changer ... highly impeachable evidence ... I would love to have gone forward with the case, but if you don't have a reasonable chance for a conviction ... It did bother me because he's a sociopath ... I'm surprised he hasn't gotten into trouble since then. I would've loved to nail his ass ... I'm a career prosecutor ... some get away."

That's from a prosecutor in New Mexico who I spoke to a few years ago after ferreting out police reports, court records on a local transplant who was thisclose to going to prison for 5 years but got off on a technicality.

The accuser, who I tracked down and surprisingly talked to me, was a tribal judge at the time. The accused is a fucking loser. But the justice system worked in his favor.

 

Well, in the court of public opinion, I suppose who’s doing the accusing, who’s the accused, and when the accusations are coming (are they “topical” or “newsworthy”?) factor into that.

I suppose I should be as worried about that arena as I am about that of the criminal justice/campus tribunal systems. But maybe it’s because my libertarian-ish-ness sees those latter as so much more terrifying, but I can’t bring myself to that place.

 

Isn’t it also terrifying that tens of thousands walk free under the curren, entrenched standard?

It just so happens that that’s the default, the anchor.

 

Yep. Pick your terror.

 

Argh. That’s so unsatisfying!

 

Some of y'all might want to find out if this company is hiring:

http://cordellcordell.com

 

The behavioral economists might refer to that as an “endowment effect” (their label, not mine) ... we value what we have more than we’d be willing to pay what it would cost to acquire it. Put another way, once we have something (the presumption of innocence, for example) our inclination to hold onto it is disproportionate to its value to us.

I wonder, further, how views on this change as a result of the people in our lives. For example, a garden-variety “she should be believed” woman ... does she begin to soften her stance as her son approaches young adulthood (and, presumably, becomes more likely to commit/be accused of sexual assault)? Fathers of teenaged-to-twenty-ish daughters ... do they begin to lean more in the “she should be believed” direction?

 

What a weird post, in the midst of what has been a really productive discussion.

(From a poster who dropped the phrase “pussy-whipped as a pejorative not 12 hours ago.)

 

We can personalize it even more here ... @Dick Whitman, if Mrs. Whitman said her boss sexually assaulted her by grabbing her ass, what is going to be your first inclination?

 

I said earlier my impulse is to believe a hypothetical accuser under most circumstances.

 

I think impartiality goes out the window 99.9999% of the time when it's someone you know or even a loved one.