News Rapp: Spacey Made Sexual Advance Toward Me

[donners22]

Again, whenever this type of thing occurs it's horrible; but if it's your word against someone else's and that's it (no other evidence whatsoever) - IMO that's not enough to convict or label someone a sex offender. And again, it doesn't make it 'right' - but once you go down the "You can be convicted SOLEY on a person's word alone..." <--- That's not a place I want to live/justice system I want to be judged under.

I don't know about your country, but convictions on that basis routinely occur in mine, and others that I am aware of. The rate of conviction and prosecution is substantially lower than for other offences, but it certainly happens.

I'm really not sure what evidence you expect to find for an offence which by its nature does not usually have eyewitnesses or physical injuries.

To have a system which does not allow for a possibility of conviction in such circumstances - after a full opportunity for examination of the evidence, and with the appropriate burden and standard of proof, of course - renders sexual assault essentially unprosecutable in a substantial portion of cases.

That is a far more unpalatable situation, in my view.

 

[Commishsleer]

I don't know about your country, but convictions on that basis routinely occur in mine, and others that I am aware of. The rate of conviction and prosecution is substantially lower than for other offences, but it certainly happens.

I'm really not sure what evidence you expect to find for an offence which by its nature does not usually have eyewitnesses or physical injuries.

To have a system which does not allow for a possibility of conviction in such circumstances - after a full opportunity for examination of the evidence, and with the appropriate burden and standard of proof, of course - renders sexual assault essentially unprosecutable in a substantial portion of cases.

That is a far more unpalatable situation, in my view.

Yes its very difficult to get a conviction based on one person's word against another anyway without some form of corroboration but if you rule it out then practically every child molester would be unconvictable.
Most child molesters get the victims alone.

Rapp was alone with Spacey.
Stacey's assistant was alone in the car with Spacey.
Therefore Spacey is free to carry on as he sadly has been (I was stupidly hoping the Rapp case was a one-off).

Actually I'm not even sure Stacey has done anything he can be convicted of even if he confesses.

With Rapp speaking out he makes it better going forward for other potential victims even if he cannot get 'justice' for himself.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Allegations of sexual misconduct by Spacey are coming out now from House of Card crewmembers

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/02/media/house-of-cards-kevin-spacey-harassment/index.html

 

[CardassianAssassin]

Meh... Awful people are often delightful in private life, and people we look up to are sometimes horrible behind four walls.

Hitler wasn’t killing Jews in his off hours. He was an animal lover who taught his dog to do tricks, and always made sure his visitors left with a lunch in their bag.

Kevin Spacey might be a dreadful person in his private life (though granted so far it’s only vague, mostly anonymous accusations.), but that doesn’t change the fact that American Beauty or The Usual Suspects are awesome movies.

I’ll still enjoy watching House of Cards, because it’s a good drama.

There is such a thing as separating real life from fiction. Watching a drama starring Kevin Spacey isn’t the same as making a moral judgement of the man and his actions.

 

[CardassianAssassin]

And speaking of the larger Weinstein/Hollywood scandal there are two things everyone should keep in mind.

1. Don’t trust a man who calls himself “a feminist”.

2. When you read about Dustin Hoffman telling someone off color jokes over THIRTY YEARS AGO in the news, there’s a good reason to believe we’ve crossed into moral panic-territory.

Ever heard of the Satanic Sexual Abuse Panic/Scandal in the 80ies/early 90ies?
There were hundreds of cases, primarily in the US, of Satanic cults sexually abusing young children and teenagers, and in some cases even killing them. What started as anonymous witnesses and whistleblowers became investigations and criminal cases. People were tried. In some cases convicted.

And only later did it turn out, that none of it was true.

Now I’m not saying that Weinstein or Spacey or anyone else is innocent or anything like that. It’s not really my job.

But there is a reason why we have a judicial system, and why cases like this are best dealt with within that system.

Does Hollywood have a problem with sexism? Probably.

Are there rampant sexual assaults there? That’s certainly possible.

But it’s also true that people lie sometimes. Sometimes they might lie without realizing it. Sometimes they believe their own lies.

And for anyone who brings up the argument “why would they lie about something like this?” Or “one person could tell a lie, but when so many people say something, it has to be true”, try to look up the Satanic Sexual Abuse scandal and read up on it.

 

[cultcross]

1. Don’t trust a man who calls himself “a feminist

 

[jespah]

^^^
That's why what we have is a 'Legal' system (and not a 'Justice' system.) Again, I understand what you're saying but as soon as we make an exception where "Oh, if you're accuse of a a forced sex assault, we'll ALWAYS believe the 'victims' word and convict/sentence based on that..."

Again, whenever this type of thing occurs it's horrible; but if it's your word against someone else's and that's it (no other evidence whatsoever) - IMO that's not enough to convict or label someone a sex offender. And again, it doesn't make it 'right' - but once you go down the "You can be convicted SOLEY on a person's word alone..." <--- That's not a place I want to live/justice system I want to be judged under.

This^

Of course child abuse is abhorrent. Of course it is. Of course victims should be believed. Of course - not only for their own sakes but also to make it easier for others to come forward, whether they are accusing the same person or someone else.

However, belief is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and thank God that it's not. We can believe victims' statements and take them seriously and investigate them up the wazoo - hell yeah! But they don't prove anything without more. What's more? Physical evidence, confessions, tapes, circumstantial corroboration, sexual acting out by very young children (a four year old who understands what oral sex is, is highly likely to have been exposed to some degree of abuse. But this is not a lead pipe cinch when the victim is a teen), etc.

We also need to consider the double jeopardy situation. We don't keep coming after someone, over and over again, in the US. We can't - it's un-freakin'-constitutional (fifth amendment, see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment ).

I am not without sympathy/empathy. The biggest problem is that victims often take years to process their experiences. Alison Arngrim accused her brother, and it was some 14 years after the events – and she noted that 14, 15 years is pretty typical for victims in terms of processing time. This also dovetails into victims often being convinced/coerced/strong-armed into keeping quiet. "Our little secret", etc. Plus that can run smack dab into statutes of limitations although a lot of American jurisdictions have nixed the idea of a statute of limitations for signification offenses against children such as abuse, see: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Statute of Limitations for Prosecution of Offenses Against Children 2012.pdf

The second biggest problem is that victims are isolated and that means it's harder to find proof beyond a statement (notice I am using the term proof and not evidence. Fun fact: evidence is stuff that's admitted. Proof isn't always evidence, but evidence is always a form of proof). With no lasting physical consequences, no physical evidence (bruising and the like), no confession from the perp, man oh man it is difficult to mount a case.

The third biggest problem is the very youth of the most vulnerable victims. Infants can't testify, of course, and usually it takes a lot of fancy footwork to get a preschooler's testimony admitted. Courts want to be fair all around and so it's tougher with very young children because the dividing line between fantasy and reality can often be blurry. A child who believes goblins are real and who doesn't think they'll get punished (or go to hell) for lying, and is under the age of 5, is likely to have his or her testimony impeached expertly by the defense lawyer. Plus courts and DAs would rather not further traumatize very young victims by making them relive the experience via testifying.

What's the solution? I wish I knew. One is to keep encouraging victims to come forward, regardless of when they do, and give them a means of doing so without being excoriated for coming forward. Another is to find a way to protect children from circumstances where abuse can happen (means limitations). But that's a lot trickier, particularly when the perp is a parent or sibling. In the case of Hollywood, it would probably be a good idea to start copying what the medical profession does - have a third person in the room during examinations (in Hollywood's case, auditions). That doesn't fix all of it but it could be a start.

 

[RobertCardassian]

Spacey is a sick sick DIGUSTING pathetic excuse for a human being. I hope he loses everything---jobs, house, gets sued to the end of time

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Spacey is a sick sick DIGUSTING pathetic excuse for a human being. I hope he loses everything---jobs, house, gets sued to the end of time

How very Frank Underwood of you to say that.

Spacey's done some terrible things, yes. And if there was a way to make him face justice, I'd be all for it. But deliberately wishing harm on someone, and taking pride and enjoyment in making them suffer...no, then you're no better than they are.

 

[ichab]

Meh... Awful people are often delightful in private life, and people we look up to are sometimes horrible behind four walls.

Hitler wasn’t killing Jews in his off hours. He was an animal lover who taught his dog to do tricks, and always made sure his visitors left with a lunch in their bag.

Kevin Spacey might be a dreadful person in his private life (though granted so far it’s only vague, mostly anonymous accusations.), but that doesn’t change the fact that American Beauty or The Usual Suspects are awesome movies.

I’ll still enjoy watching House of Cards, because it’s a good drama.

There is such a thing as separating real life from fiction. Watching a drama starring Kevin Spacey isn’t the same as making a moral judgement of the man and his actions.

We're not talking about someone whose at fault for just being a simple douchebag or "unpleasant person." We're talking about someone who is showing a pattern of sexually harassing young boys. That is just sick and he deserves every bit of condemnation heaped at him.

 

[ichab]

How very Frank Underwood of you to say that.

Spacey's done some terrible things, yes. And if there was a way to make him face justice, I'd be all for it. But deliberately wishing harm on someone, and taking pride and enjoyment in making them suffer...no, then you're no better than they are.

Oh please. Wishing for something bad to happen is not even in the same ballpark as actually doing something harmful like scarring young boys for life.

 

[Nyotarules]

It seems that in the Hollywood "wonderland" everyone knew everything,"but" people thought it was ok to tolerate predators.
And mind you this all makes fuss because of the whole celebrities thingy, I do not want to imagine what is going on in business or schools and colleges..

Or religious instititutions....

 

[Nyotarules]

Allegations of sexual misconduct by Spacey are coming out now from House of Card crewmembers

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/02/media/house-of-cards-kevin-spacey-harassment/index.html

Why do predators wait to be publically exposed to decide they need 'treatment'....

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Why do predators wait to be publically exposed to decide they need 'treatment'....

I know, right. I just read that Spacey has been dumped by his agent and publicist, i find it a bit hard to believe that they didn't know considering as it turns out that Spacey had gotten himself in trouble on film sets more than once.

 

[Nyotarules]

I know, right. I just read that Spacey has been dumped by his agent and publicist, i find it a bit hard to believe that they didn't know considering as it turns out that Spacey had gotten himself in trouble on film sets more than once.

Rats deserting a sinking ship

 

[gblews]

To have a system which does not allow for a possibility of conviction in such circumstances - after a full opportunity for examination of the evidence, and with the appropriate burden and standard of proof, of course - renders sexual assault essentially unprosecutable in a substantial portion of cases.

That is a far more unpalatable situation, in my view.

But in the scenario in question, there is no evidence, only the word of the accuser. As for the burden of proof, that remains with the prosecution (at least in the US). So, what to do in situations where one person honestly thinks he/she is having consensual sex, while the other does not think it's consensual?

I'm a big Lakers fan and after Kobe Bryant was accused of sex assault in 2003, I did a lot of reading around the internet about this crime. It was quite enlightening. Seems we have gone from a system where all the defendant had to do was make the accuser look sexually promiscuous in court, to a system where a person can be arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty based solely on the word of one person with no actual physical evidence (or proof, thanks Rabid Bat).

Both systems are wrong and potentially do more harm than good.

I came away from what I discovered thinking that under the current system, perhaps there should be something a person can be convicted of that falls short of a felony or misdemeanor and carries no prison sentence and no requirement that the convicted register as a sex offender. However, the trade off would be that these convictions would be available as evidence in any future cases of sex assault against the convicted. Having one or maybe two "priors" can be considered affirmative proof in a second, or third case.

I'm not including child molestation cases, or cases where the accuser has been beaten and can pick the defendant out of a line up, and the defendant can be placed in the vicinity of the crime.

One last thing, I'v read that in other countries when there is an allegation of sex assault, both the accuser and the accusee's identities are kept sealed until, I think, charges are filed or until there is a conviction. I think this should be implemented in the US.

 

[Nyotarules]

In the UK when this topic comes up (re Jimmy Saville, Rod Harris, Stuart Hall sex cases - very famous folks in the UK) the present legal case is the victim identity is kept sealed but the accused are not. There are arguments when an innocent person is accused that their ids should be kept sealed also, however the police successfully argue its the only way to get other victims to come forward when someone is named, otherwise all those famous folks who were convicted would get away with their crimes.

 

[donners22]

But in the scenario in question, there is no evidence, only the word of the accuser.

Which is evidence. What you mean is that there is no independent or physical evidence.

I'm a big Lakers fan and after Kobe Bryant was accused of sex assault in 2003, I did a lot of reading around the internet about this crime. It was quite enlightening.

Possibly not as enlightening as you might think. A lot of what is written about law is misleading or outright false, whether news reports, opinion pieces and even journal articles. That is particularly so for a divisive issue which tends to attract extreme positions from both sides of the argument.

Seems we have gone from a system where all the defendant had to do was make the accuser look sexually promiscuous in court, to a system where a person can be arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty based solely on the word of one person with no actual physical evidence (or proof, thanks Rabid Bat).

For a crime which doesn't typically generate physical evidence, or have witnesses.

The burden of proof remains on the prosecution and the standard remains beyond reasonable doubt. If that can be proven on one person's evidence, then it is in my experience because there is a "hook" for the jury which makes the allegation highly reliable. I have seen convictions in such circumstances, and have no doubt that the jury got it right. If the jury should have entertained a doubt, then it can rightly be overturned on appeal.

The vast majority of such allegations do not get to trial, which means there is usually something particularly strong about the ones which do - and even then the conviction rate is low.

That doesn't mean the possibility of a conviction in such circumstances should be ruled out. That reflects a decent balance between the nature of the crime and the high standard required for a criminal conviction.

And honestly, the US justice system has a hell of a lot more problems than that. My colleagues and I are often appalled by what we hear goes on there.

 

[jespah]

Perhaps one of the issues we have is that it's sex and naughty bits and the like. It's scandalous by its very nature, even when it turns out the accused is innocent. Victims are made to feel shame in a way that robbery victims sure as hell aren't - and things are better than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. As @gblews pointed out, it was the very breath of sexiness on the victim's part that used to be the get out of jail free card for perps. A 14 year old isn't supposed to be sexy - yet we know that sometimes they can be, by people who might legitimately confuse them with folks over 18. And hell, it's in the opposite direction as well, the kink of making folks who are of age look underage as someone's turn-on.

I wish there were good ways to protect people. The kids who are harmed, or who put themselves out there and don't realize they are putting themselves in harm's way (case in point: when I was 14, 15, I wore hot pants because I thought I looked pretty. I also looked 16 when I was 12 years old - thank you early blooming genes, for nuffin). And also the accused who turn out to be innocent.

Our system has a ton of flaws. I don't think any of us will disagree with that. DNA evidence is a fantastic thing, but it's not available in every instance. It wouldn't have been in the Rapp matter. And it wouldn't have been if things had gone further but Rapp's assailant was female.

Parents hover too much as it is. Helicoptering is real and it is raising up a generation that seems to embrace crippling shyness as a way of life. Yes, I am generalizing here. I don't know what the solution is, of course.

All we can really do is keep talking, keep trying, and keep believing people who come forward and at the absolute minimum give them an outlet to be heard. The number of false accusations is small in comparison to the number of events which go unreported.

 

[gblews]

Possibly not as enlightening as you might think. A lot of what is written about law is misleading or outright false, whether news reports, opinion pieces and even journal articles. That is particularly so for a divisive issue which tends to attract extreme positions from both sides of the argument.

Well yes, "enlightening" is in the eye of the beholder and I was enlightened. And, it's the internet, you can never take everything you see as gospel.

The burden of proof remains on the prosecution and the standard remains beyond reasonable doubt. If that can be proven on one person's evidence, then it is in my experience because there is a "hook" for the jury which makes the allegation highly reliable. I have seen convictions in such circumstances, and have no doubt that the jury got it right. If the jury should have entertained a doubt, then it can rightly be overturned on appeal.

Well what I'm questioning here is the fairness of a system that would allow a person to be charged, tried and convicted based solely on one person's word. I realize that there are prosecutors out there who can get a conviction based on one person's word. But that doesn't always mean that the defendant actually committed the crime, especially in some sex assault cases. My question is, is it right? Is it fair? From what I have seen and read, I don't think it is, any more than being able to trot out a person's past (supposed) sex partners in an attempt to prove the accuser was a "slut" who was "asking for it".

This is why I think focusing on providing a jury with additional avenues of conviction, where applicable, is a viable alternative to trying to change the entire system and for states to begin re-writing sex assault laws.

I can't argue sex assault law here, but I sure can argue right and wrong.