Social Question

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

What do you think of the Weinstein verdict?

Asked by lucillelucillelucille (34325points) February 24th, 2020

He was found guilty of a criminal sex act in the first degree and rape in the third degree.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

38 Answers

Dutchess_III's avatar

He’s looking at 5 to 25. That’s not enough, IMO.

jca2's avatar

He’s still facing charges in Los Angeles, which is good.

jca2's avatar

He faces 5 to 29, according to the NY Times. He’s being held in Rikers Island awaiting his sentencing. Rikers is no picnic.

ucme's avatar

Any man who uses a position of power to abuse women deserves locking up!
I noticed there were 7 men on the jury & he was still convicted, this pleases me.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Depends on the sentence. He’s a piece of shit. He can die in jail for all I care.

seawulf575's avatar

I have mixed feelings. He’s a complete cad for using his position to get sex from women. He is a piece of shit for thinking he deserved whatever he wanted and was willing to coerce women to get it. But at least some of his accusers used his efforts to help further their careers. So that tends to make them just as guilty in my book. Didn’t we have a question about this before? About women using sex to get things? @Dutchess_III wasn’t it you that said this should be okay…for a woman to offer sex to get things? That prostitution should be legal? Seems like in at least some of the situations the women got what they wanted and came back later to complain about it. So I think we, as a society, need to address what is considered morally acceptable. If I am running a company and a woman offers sex for a promotion (which is what at least some of Weinstein’s accusers effectively did), if I fired them for that offer, would that be okay?

KNOWITALL's avatar

Frankly I am also of two minds on this, like @seawulf575. I’m not excusing his horrible behavior or assaults or rapes. But, the women got something out of it, which is the quid pro quo of the casting couch, which basically meant a mutual agreement of sorts. You get this, I get that.

To me that muddies the water a bit, because it implies consent with the ‘acts’ to get the part. But he’d have had to prove in each case, that the victim was aware of the unspoken ‘agreement’, which I assume he did not prove. That’s the defense I would have mounted anyway.

rebbel's avatar

coerce
verb
persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

Fuck all rapists.
If I get the rapists of my former girlfriend in front of my car they’re dead.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yes, if women want to offer sex to get something it’s their business, not mine. They key word here is “offer.” The other key word is “accept.” Weinstien isn’t “offering.” He’s taking it by force. Not comparable.

Thank you @rebbel.

filmfann's avatar

He should fry.

seawulf575's avatar

@rebbel as I said, I’m not excusing Weinstein. But let’s be honest….force can mean emotional or psychological as opposed to physical. If I persuade you to do something you might not want to do by offering you a short cut to get something you really want, that is coercion. If I threaten to hold you back from achieving your goals if you don’t do what I want, that is coercion. But if someone asked me to do something I would later say was a felony on their part, I wouldn’t do it in the first place. They are a piece of shit any way you slice it…but if I go along with their efforts, what does that say about me? And if I go along with it, can I then later say they are the only douche bag in the story?

Zaku's avatar

@seawulf575 Why do you think it’s relevant to push that argument about force here?

Weinstien was convicted of RAPE, not “force”, not just “emotional or psychological” force. So why are you trying to argue that here?

Read THIS e,g, “I was trying to get him off of me… I was punching him, I was kicking him, and he took my hands and put them over my head,””“He got on top of me,” she said, “and he raped me.”

I’ll be honest too – it really pisses me off that people respond to cases like this by making irrelevant digressions.

seawulf575's avatar

@zaku I can say it again…I’m not excusing Weinstein…he’s a piece of shit. But let’s be accurate in our judgments of him. He was convicted of THIRD DEGREE RAPE. That’s an interesting statement. If you read the NY state laws on rape (section 130.25), that has three aspects that can make it third degree. He could have had sex with a 17 year old because NY state considers a 17 year old incapable of giving consent. He could have had sex with someone that couldn’t give consent, such as they were under the influence of drugs, passed out, etc. He could have had sexual intercourse with someone against their consent where the lack of consent was some other reason than being under 17 yo.
What you described with your citation and quotations was FIRST DEGREE RAPE (section 130.35). It falls under the category of forcible compulsion. Interesting that he wasn’t convicted of first degree, eh? He wasn’t even tried for the case Ms Sciorra claimed.
The third degree rape is what happens when someone uses pressure on their victim to get them to have sex. Using his “quid pro quo” position of power falls into this category.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: If I’m not mistaken, the case Sciorra claimed was out of the statute of limitations.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , Convicting someone of rape is difficult. How do you determine whether there was consent or not? When does No! mean no? There must not be reasonable doubt. That the jury found reasonable doubt regarding the more serious charges does not mean that they could not have been true. Make no mistake about it. This was a landmark decision that will most likely encourage others to seek justice for the sexual assaults they experienced. This kind of decision was long overdue.

rebbel's avatar

Weinstein, a third degree rapist.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@seawulf575 I’m curious why he didn’t just get NDA’s like all the other rich/ stars do, to cover themselves from doing time? I hear it’s very standard procedure to prevent these issues.

Inspired_2write's avatar

He will definitely be a target for inmates, once he is in jail.
I heard that his lawyers are going to appeal his sentence and I bet they will prolong the process in the meantime.
In prison I can see him using money and power to buy off protection from some inmates.
He will be seen as a commodity to plunder.

chyna's avatar

He isn’t in the prison yet. He started having chest pains after the verdict and they took him to a hospital.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That’s why we have courts @seawulf575, so we can see and hear the evidence and make a decision.
A decision was made. He raped her, against her will.

Zaku's avatar

@seawulf575 Such questions are not that “interesting” to me in the context of this case, and if I were more interested, I would look at the actual case details, not conjecture about the various definitions compared to the final conviction. It strikes me as being in very poor taste to belabor such general sidetrack arguments in a topic about a particular case.

I haven’t gone to that level of detail, but it seems to me that a conviction to a degree can be based on the charge that’s technically legally provable beyond a reasonable doubt, and the category you mention “against their consent where the lack of consent was some other reason” might be considered more legally provable, despite there being credible testimony it was much worse than that.

Do you think the actresses here are lying? I certainly don’t, so the only way I find the details of conviction interesting is in how light the convictions are so far (to which my guess is what I just wrote above), though I gather he has more charges to answer for at least one other jurisdiction as well.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 there is no statute of limitations on rape in NY. Nor is there one in California.

seawulf575's avatar

@KNOWITALL I guess he didn’t want to be confused with Mike Bloomberg.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@seawulf575 haha!

Now how about this comment? Wasn’t Kavanaugh’s issue in hs? Hmmmm.
Furthermore a woman telling others to ‘get over it’ regarding investigating possible abuse?

“Diana Taylor, Mike Bloomberg’s longtime partner, dismissed the concerns surrounding non-disclosure agreements used at his company, Bloomberg LP, telling CBS News that she would say to those bothered by the allegations, “It was 30 years ago, get over it.”

https://www.axios.com/michael-bloomberg-diana-taylor-ndas-get-over-it-3a3ae8fe-bfd5-48b5-a23e-18584fb43605.html

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Wrong. There is no statute of limitations on rape now, but at the time the event occurred, in Annabella Sciorra’s case, there was a statute of limitations.

Read on:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/judge-allows-annabella-sciorra-testify-184319876.html

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Did you read your own citation? The defense tried claiming a statute of limitations that changed in 2006 would be unconstitutional to apply to something that happened before that and the justice rejected their claim. That case could have gone forward as a rape charge. So why wasn’t it?

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: You wrote: “there is no statute of limitations on rape in NY. Nor is there one in California.”

At the time of the incident between Annabella Sciorra and Harvey Weinstein (the alleged incident), there was a statute of limitations on rape.

Read in my link where they talk about ex post facto law and learn about what that means. A quick Google search will explain that to you.

Check out this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-annabella-sciorra-trial.html?searchResultPosition=2

In this link, it states that was happened with Ms. Sciorra happened too long ago to be charged as a rape, but prosecutors are using her testimony to bolster a charge of predatory sexual assault.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 I understand exactly what ex post facto means. It is addressing the retroactive application of the changed law. And in the citation you gave, the judge tossed out that argument. So what is your argument? That the judge should have given Weinstein a pass? Or is it just that you really didn’t read your own citation or understand what it was saying? You had Weinstein’s attorneys arguing for tossing out Sciorra’s rape charge because the ex post facto application of the law was unconstitutional and the judge dismissed that argument. That means they could have gone after him for her rape. Obviously they didn’t think there was any real evidence to it. But they don’t mind letting her make an unprovable accusation against him to help smear him.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Did you read the second article I linked?

seawulf575's avatar

No…it doesn’t like giving me a free look.

jca2's avatar

Several women are expected to testify during the trial that Mr. Weinstein attacked them, though Mr. Weinstein faces charges of rape and criminal sexual act based on the allegations of only two of them. The judge is allowing the others to testify to establish a pattern of behavior, even though most of their allegations are too old to qualify as crimes under state law.

Ms. Sciorra’s encounter with Mr. Weinstein also happened too long ago to be charged as a rape, but prosecutors are using her testimony to bolster a charge of predatory sexual assault. That count carries a possible life sentence and requires the state to prove Mr. Weinstein committed a serious sexual offense against at least two people.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575 here:

“The Weinstein Trial

Annabella Sciorra Testifies in Harvey Weinstein Trial: ‘He Raped Me’

“The Sopranos” actress fought back tears as she told a hushed courtroom, in excruciating detail, about the night she said she was attacked.
Several women are expected to testify in the Harvey Weinstein trial. The actress Annabella Sciorra was the first to do so.
Several women are expected to testify in the Harvey Weinstein trial. The actress Annabella Sciorra was the first to do so. Credit…Lucas Jackson/Reuters

By Jan Ransom and Alan Feuer

Published Jan. 23, 2020
Updated Jan. 27, 2020

Our Latest Coverage
Mimi Haleyi took the stand on the fourth day of testimony.

They met at a party in Los Angeles in the early 1990s. She was an up-and-coming actress. He was a young producer. As they got to know each other over the next few years, there were, she said, some “inappropriate” gestures: a care package of popcorn and Valium, a box of chocolate penises.

Then, Annabella Sciorra said on the witness stand on Thursday, Harvey Weinstein raped her.

Fighting back tears, Ms. Sciorra testified in excruciating detail to a hushed courtroom about the night she said she was attacked. After shoving his way into her Manhattan apartment, she said, Mr. Weinstein took her to a bedroom, forced her onto the bed and, as she sought to fight him off, sexually assaulted her.

“I was trying to get him off me,” Ms. Sciorra told the jury, her voice cracking with emotion. “I was punching him, kicking him.” But Mr. Weinstein held her down, she said, adding: “He got on top of me and he raped me.”

The testimony in State Supreme Court in Manhattan marked the first time that one of Mr. Weinstein’s numerous accusers took the stand at a long-awaited criminal trial that has come to symbolize the #MeToo movement.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Several women are expected to testify during the trial that Mr. Weinstein attacked them, though Mr. Weinstein faces charges of rape and criminal sexual act based on the allegations of only two of them. The judge is allowing the others to testify to establish a pattern of behavior, even though most of their allegations are too old to qualify as crimes under state law.

Ms. Sciorra’s encounter with Mr. Weinstein also happened too long ago to be charged as a rape, but prosecutors are using her testimony to bolster a charge of predatory sexual assault. That count carries a possible life sentence and requires the state to prove Mr. Weinstein committed a serious sexual offense against at least two people.

Mr. Weinstein, now 67, faces charges that he raped an aspiring actress in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and forced oral sex on a production assistant in his TriBeCa apartment in 2006.

Mr. Weinstein’s lawyers maintain that the women willingly had sex with him to advance their careers, and that some of them continued intimate relationships with him after the alleged attacks.

[The Weinstein trial began with vivid descriptions of several sexual attacks.]

Ms. Sciorra, who is best known for her role in “The Sopranos,” said the assault took place in her apartment in Gramercy Park in either late 1993 or early 1994.

That night, she said, she had joined Mr. Weinstein at an uneventful dinner with several other people at a restaurant in downtown Manhattan. Mr. Weinstein gave her a ride home, she said, and after he dropped her off at 10 p.m., she went upstairs, got into a nightgown and brushed her teeth, preparing herself for bed.

Moments later, she recalled, there was a knock at her door and she thought it was a neighbor or her doorman. But when she opened the door, she said, Mr. Weinstein pushed his way inside.

When Mr. Weinstein unbuttoned his shirt, she said, she realized “he thought we were about to have sex.” She said that she considered running into her bathroom, but before she could, Mr. Weinstein grabbed the front of her nightgown, pushed her into a bedroom, and raped her on the bed, pinning her arms above her head.

“I said, ‘No, no,’ but there was not much I could do,” she said. “My body shut down. It was so disgusting my body started to shake in a way that was unusual. It was like a seizure or something.”

Mr. Weinstein walked out, she said, and she lost consciousness. “I woke up, but I’m not sure if I fainted, blacked out or fell asleep,” she said. She was on the floor with her nightgown pushed up, she said.

Several weeks later, she said, she confronted Mr. Weinstein at a restaurant about the incident. “This remains between you and I,” she recalled Mr. Weinstein telling her.

“It was very menacing,” she said. “His eyes went black — I thought he was going to hit me right there.”

Ms. Sciorra said that she never called the police. “He was someone I knew,” Ms. Sciorra said. “I felt at the time that rape was something that happened in a back alleyway in a dark place.”

Ms. Sciorra said the attack left emotional scars. She started to drink heavily and even began cutting herself. Sometimes, she recalled, she would slice her hands and fingers and paint a white wall in her apartment “blood red.”

In the years after the assault, Ms. Sciorra said, Mr. Weinstein continued to harass her. On one occasion, she recalled, he showed up unannounced at her hotel room in London, so she changed rooms in the middle of the night.

In 1997, Ms. Sciorra told the jury, she went to the Cannes Film Festival to promote her movie “Cop Land.” One morning, at 5 a.m., she said, she opened the door of her hotel room to find Mr. Weinstein standing in the hallway in his underwear. He had a bottle of baby oil in one hand and a videotape in the other.

“I couldn’t get past him,” Ms. Sciorra said. She said she “pressed all of the call buttons” on the telephone. “People came,” she added, “and he left.”

She said she remained mostly silent about the incidents until October 2017, when she spoke to a journalist — likely a reference to Ronan Farrow, who published an account of the alleged rape in Manhattan in The New Yorker.

“I was afraid for my life,” Ms. Sciorra said.

Donna Rotunno, one of Mr. Weinstein’s lawyers, attempted to discredit Ms. Sciorra’s testimony on cross-examination, pointing out that the actress could not remember the exact date of the alleged assault and several other details about the night.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Ms. Rotunno also asked Ms. Sciorra why she would open her apartment door without first finding out who might be on the other side.

“So, you hear this knock, you’re in a nightgown and you don’t say, ‘Who is it?’” Ms. Rotunno asked.

“No,” Ms. Sciorra answered. “I opened the door and he was right there.”

Ms. Rotunno asked Ms. Sciorra why she did not flee. “He was too big,” the witness answered. The defense lawyer asked why she never called the doorman to inquire why he had let Mr. Weinstein in without her permission. “I was devastated,” Ms. Sciorra said.

Ms. Sciorra acknowledged to Ms. Rotunno that after the alleged assault, she did not see a doctor, or call the police. She said she told only two friends what had happened, one of them the actress Rosie Perez.

“At the time,” Ms. Sciorra said, “I didn’t understand that was rape.”

“You were 33 years old, if your timeline is correct,” Ms. Rotunno said.

Ms. Rotunno later played the jury a video clip of Ms. Sciorra appearing on “Late Show With David Letterman” in 1997. In the clip, Ms. Sciorra admitted that she had made up little lies about her life, saying, for instance, that her father had once raised iguanas in the circus.

In a rebuttal minutes later, the lead prosecutor, Joan Illuzzi asked Ms. Sciorra if she had ever lied about matters as serious as her allegations against Mr. Weinstein. “No,” she replied.

“This is not a tale?” Ms. Illuzzi said.

“No,” Ms. Sciorra said.

Emily Palmer contributed reporting.

seawulf575's avatar

So they are using her testimony to smear him. Got it.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575 It goes back to your defending Weinstein and saying he wasn’t even tried for the rape that Sciorra claimed. I linked explanations about the statute of limitations which you incorrectly claimed were in existence. Whether or not you like it is not the issue.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 I’m not defending Weinstein. If you go back and read, I have stated he is a douche bag, a piece of shit. Even if the women went along with his crap, he’s still a piece of shit for using his position of power like that. And I did say there is no statute of limitations on rape in NY or CA. And I was only partially right on that. There is none…now. But as your article pointed out, it really didn’t matter in court since the judge would have allowed the prosecution anyway. So he could have been tried for the “rape” of Sciorra….but wasn’t. So if they weren’t going to try him for the crime, her testimony was nothing more than smear. And your article also pointed that out, though not in those same words. The judge definitely appeared to be in favor of anything that would hurt Weinstein. He allowed Sciorra to testify even though her claims were from 13 years before the change in the statute, he denied the defenses expert witness to testify on matters of relevance to the situation, he denied the defense the names of two witnesses, and a few others.
So I would suggest you go back up and re-read my comments. I’m not defending Weinstein, but I’m not blindly supporting the women either. I think there is more to the story.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther