Bet no one saw this one coming (Weinstein's conviction over-turned)..

[Werewolf]

Coercion or a transaction? If your doing x to get y or at the very least the promise of y is that not OK?

There's a fine line with this stuff and it's rarely as clear cut as is often portrayed.

Weinstien was basically ambushing women and making it very clear that either they slept with him, or they would get a reputation as being hard to work with and would definitely never get a job on any film his company had anything to do with.

That's not really a fine line, that's basically "you either sleep with me now, or I ruin your career and make it so you never get a job in the business again", and that was the "nicest" way he did it (the women he targeted were very deliberately put in a position where they were surprised and given no time to get over the shock).

 

[Deleted User 234324]

Weinstien was basically ambushing women and making it very clear that either they slept with him, or they would get a reputation as being hard to work with and would definitely never get a job on any film his company had anything to do with.

That's not really a fine line, that's basically "you either sleep with me now, or I ruin your career and make it so you never get a job in the business again", and that was the "nicest" way he did it (the women he targeted were very deliberately put in a position where they were surprised and given no time to get over the shock).

That's clearly coercion.

 

[TheVoice]

I don't see this as rape, rape is when you can't walk away and the person is held down by force.

The legal definition of rape (both in US and UK law) make absolutely no mention of holding someone against their will or use of force. It's entirely about consent, and it's worrying you don't know that.

Troll or not, you seem like an awful person.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

The legal definition of rape (both in US and UK law) make absolutely no mention of holding someone against their will or use of force. It's entirely about consent, and it's worrying you don't know that.

Troll or not, you seem like an awful person.

You are incorrect on this count, the US law does mention the use of force. A lack of consent appears to be classed as Sexual assault.

10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally

www.law.cornell.edu

Edit: Legal terms often mean very specific things when compared to day to day use.

 

[gary996]

He won't be out anytime soon

 

[TheVoice]

You are incorrect on this count, the US law does mention the use of force. A lack of consent appears to be classed as Sexual assault.

10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally

www.law.cornell.edu

Edit: Legal terms often mean very specific things when compared to day to day use.

Thanks, that wasn't on the page I looked at.

Edit: After a second look, the above legislation (Title 10) appears to relate specifically to rape within the US military, the broader definition and that used by the FBI focuses on consent.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Thanks, that wasn't on the page I looked at.

Edit: After a second look, the above legislation (Title 10) appears to relate specifically to rape within the US military, the broader definition and that used by the FBI focuses on consent.

Well that explains the court martial bit.

I wonder why they have different definitions.

Which page were you looking at?

 

[dowie]

Pretty sure half of Hollywood saw him coming.

FFS diddums, just spat my tea all over my desk!

I think probably the appeal court is right.

The Judge in Weinstein's case violated the rules of court in allowing the other women to speak regarding Weinstein's behaviour. That's probably the right thing to happen in a case like this, but that seems like something that should be decided by the law making branch of the state rather than a decision to be made by a single Judge.

I don't think it is the right thing to do in a case like that - it's quite common that even prior convictions aren't brought up in a trial (or say the fact that a defendant is already serving a prison sentence for another violent crime etc..) let alone a bunch of allegations that seemingly didn't even warrant pressing charges over.

He should be tried on the merits of the relevant charges and unrelated claims that only service to try and sway the jury by attacking his character are clearly dubious. It's a bit iffy that the Californian conviction also used the fact he'd been convicted in NYC - now the NYC conviction has been overturned is that leaving an opening to appeal the California case too?

I don't doubt that he's a wrong un, I think he's an incredibly sleazy individual - they're just not helping themselves by going OTT with the prosecution, it will be farcical if the California one gets overturned too and needs a new trial. The more general issue, if they screw up like this in other cases, the victims (or alleged victims) then need to go through the trial process all over again because the prosecution overplayed their hand a bit, in some cases they might not be willing to do so.

 

[GIBURROWS]

He could implicate too many people I reckon, it seems a big merry go round of awful actors and awful films and TV who know too much so keep getting roles.

 

[arknor]

I don't see this as rape, rape is when you can't walk away and the person is held down by force.

some people are too scared to move or try and stop it.

the offender will obviously see the distress in the other persons face or the totally blank look