General Question

jca2's avatar

What do you think about the appeals court overturning Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

18 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

I am glad they are going to have another trial.

seawulf575's avatar

Well, it puts a pin in the #MeToo movement. Other than that, I think it is a flaw in our legal system.

zenvelo's avatar

@chyna Weinstein is a despicable man, found guilty in other cases, and this conviction was overturned on a technicality, not to right an injustice.

flutherother's avatar

It was a technicality. His sins are written on his face.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

He will have to be released from California prison, after being convicted of similar charges, to go through trial again . . . he is not going home a freeman !

elbanditoroso's avatar

“puts a pin to the #meToo movement’ says @seawulf575


The #MeToo movement ultimately found dozens, maybe hundreds of situations where sexual harassment and coercion had been kept silent for decades. Weinstein isn’t innocent – he’s still serving time for California rape and harassment offenses.

If this decision shows anything, it’s that the prosecutors need to have their ducks more in a row.

What it doesn’t do is say that Weinstein is any less guilty. To read this as a repudiation of the #Metoo efforts is naive and misleading.

chyna's avatar

I feel bad for the women who will have to testify again and relive those ugly times.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Another example galvanizing my very low opinions of the “justice system.”
And honestly, of society as a whole.
This is another example of money equalling power, equalling “justice.”

flutherother's avatar

I think he’ll have to bring his zimmer frame out of retirement for the retrial.

seawulf575's avatar

@elbanditoroso Yes, it did. But what the court just said was that bringing in those other victims as witnesses isn’t allowed. They are separate cases that were never brought forth or tried before.

Smashley's avatar

I try not to be too worried about people not being convicted. If you don’t have money, you’re often screwed, even if you are innocent. It’s not fair, but that’s more about the justice system being so unfair that only a person with money can get a fair shake. This guy has money and has only earned a delay in proceedings. There may or may not be evidence to convict him on this, but he’s still a sex offender, an inmate, and a disgrace, with very limited risk of harming the public again. If he gets out eventually, nothing about him will seem like a guy who got away with it.

jca2's avatar

He’s 72 now and he’s doing 16 years for the State of California, so he’s not going to see much time as a free person in his lifetime, even if NY chooses not to retry the NY case.

Pandora's avatar

@jca2 I believe the trial in California is also going under review for the same thing.

Pandora's avatar

I think this is a perfect example of why women rarely report rape. Especially against the rich, powerful, and well-connected.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Sad, but true.
However. Women are far from the only victims, of the economic dynamics set by society.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Hearing the story on the radio, I was bothered for a moment until they said he will remain in prison for the California conviction.

Without delving into the specific legal points (because I haven’t the knowledge or qualifications), I generally see technical dismissals as a good thing, because they protect the kind of railroading and kangaroo courts which were sadly common until very recent decades.

Smashley's avatar

railroading still happens all the time

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther