Innocent or guilty of rape?
Regardless, he's definitely guilty of having extra-Marital affairs. How his wife stands by his side is beyond me.
shareThe modern definition of rape is rather broken, it gets even more broken when you consider that both parties are probably intoxicated so they're raping each other.
The correct question should be did he prey on young women and use his status to sexually exploit them, of course he did. The issue of whether consent was given gets far too murky, especially given that our modern law doesn't allow you to give consent then get intoxicated (you must give consent in the moment, and be legally able to do so.)
The law is actually pretty clear regarding sex and drugs.
If one person drugs another without their consent and has sex with the other while they're incapacitated by drugs they did not consent to take, it's rape (and maybe poisoning as well).
If two people voluntarily take drugs and have consensual sex while able to make decisions, it's not rape.
If two people voluntarily take drugs and one becomes incapacitated, and if the other one goes ahead because the incapacitated person had agreed to sex earlier, then it's legally considered rape, because they were not able to consent at the time of the actual sex.
The only wiggle room in the existing laws are in cases where both are impaired rather than incapacitated, or one is incapacitated and the other is impaired. But neither applies to most of the Cosby cases as described, there were many cases where he put incapacitating drugs in a woman's coffee and had sex with her while she was incapacitated and he was in his right mind. That is absolutely rape. It's a tough world for somnaphilia fetishists.
The law is actually pretty clear regarding sex and drugs. If one person drugs another without their consent and has sex with the other while they're incapacitated by drugs they did not consent to take, it's rape
That definition is actually quite broken. There's several problems:
1. What's consent right now? Traditionally, consent in sex was implicit agreement and absence of coercion. Nowadays, not so much. What if the person didn't explicitly consent? What if she didn't feel like doing it and he pushed with a "c'mon!"?. 'Consent' has become a broken concept.
2. What's incapacitated right now? Traditionally, it was somebody who passed out or was heavily drugged. Nowadays, not so much. What if somebody was mildly drunk? drunk but active?. 'Incapacitated' has become another broken concept.
3. What's accepted as evidence right now? Traditionally, evidence was physical evidence, or at least proving that you willingly consenting was a highly unlikely scenario. To know whether it was unlikely or not, personal history was often used. Nowadays, not so much. Using personal history is banned in some countries since it's considered prejudicial. So the judge faces two people telling two different stories with barely any clue about which one could be telling the truth. 'Evidence' has become another broken concept.
As a general rule, a judiciary system that can't be applied consistently is broken. Here, you can send Bill Cosby to jail because he gave some Quaaludes to some chick which she willingly took. If the system was consistent, though, you should send to jail to every person who handled Quaaludes or some other drug to another person and then they had sex. That would send to jail roughly 50% of Hollywood during the 70s/80s. That'd be consistent... and that's not happening. The system is broken.
What's more. A broken system can be randomly unfair... or maybe not that randomly. Bill Cosby was an important political target. Perhaps that was a coincidence.
Probably, it wasn't. share
If you don't understand the story, go out and inform yourself before posting nonsense.
share