Author Topic: Harvey Weinstein  (Read 44701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1085 on: August 15, 2019, 09:48:34 AM »
I'm not even sure I'd call him a pimp. Seems to me that pimps are in it to make money from the girls' hard efforts. I don't gather that was happening here. Do we know if he was taking a cut of their money? I'm not sure why he'd bother. It was a pittance compared to his legal income. My hunch is that he was just keeping tabs on a variety of girls who were interested in screwing rich guys for fun and profit. Legally an argument could probably be made that he was still pandering under my interpretation. Realistically I'd call it a stretch.

That applies to the trafficking thing, as well. I have no idea what US code says about trafficking, but I'd be surprised if it didn't include something about bringing in girls from overseas to work as prostitutes. Again, there might be a legal theory that he was doing that, but I'd call it a reach, and more importantly, and insult to the real victims of sex trafficking.

This not my area of (legal) expertise, so I can't comment on that, but I will say that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't make a cent - directly - from these sexcapades.  His base job was one of relationships, and traveling (metaphorically) with the rich and famous was the best way to cultivate that.  He's known for playing up his "Harvard" connections, which are basically that he gave them a shit ton of money to further his scientific endeavors; he never actually attended Harvard (I believe he never actually graduated from ANY college), so for him, I would not be surprised if the company of the wealthy and influential was payment in and of itself.   
That's certainly the argument I'd expect them to make (if he was being charged with pandering). But I'm not sure how you'd prosecute that. In this sense the girls are no different than the aircraft. They're accoutrements. Even if he arranged for them to be there. If I open a nightclub and make it a particularly desirable place for hos to congregate, so as to draw in lots of rich folk, am I a pimp? What if I put a sign on the door that says "hos drink free?"

This gets more complicated as I think about it. I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton didn't have to write a check to the girls he banged on Little Saint James. Epstein himself was paying the girls. Are you still a pimp if you pay the girls yourself to screw other people?

And was he paying them in cash or in kind.  "Hey, here's the dilly; you don't have to work at Chipotle anymore, just come to my island in the Caribbean.  You get to tan, cavort, drink mojitos, and otherwise live the life of luxury, but if someone asks you for a "massage", it's strongly suggested you say "yes, sir, how can I help you?" 

As for "how do you prosecute that", well that's where the "sex trafficking" comes in, because it changes what has to be proved, and it's a way of jacking up the stakes.   

EDIT:  I looked it up; the sex trafficking laws are clear, but there's a loophole of sorts that applies here.    This is the definition, as I understand it:       "The U.S. Government defines sex trafficking as: trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age."

So this means, if Epstein forced, coerced, or induced by fraud, any women to perform a commercial sex act, he's a sex trafficker.   The rape allegations are important here, if they can be shown to be a step in "forcing, coercing, or inducing by fraud".  The loophole is the second part.  IF the woman (it could be men, but we're talking largely about women here) is under 18, it's AUTOMATICALLY sex trafficking, and doesn't require "force, coercion or inducement by fraud".  Again, I'm reading this as a layperson (with some experience in interpreting regulations) but that tells me that the argument hinges around "induce".   If I'm a prosecutor, and this wasn't totally the woman's idea, I'm arguing "inducement" all the way, and as long as the girl is under 18, consent never factors in.  In my "Chipotle" hypothetical, I think you can argue if that girl is not yet 18, that is an "inducement".  https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/human-trafficking/pages/welcome.aspx

When you argue sex trafficking, it changes the potential penalties, and opens up the possibility of, among other things, financial remuneration for the girls involved in this (I think Harmony already pointed this out). 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1086 on: August 15, 2019, 09:51:48 AM »
I tend to agree with you, pretty much down the line.   The part of Moorcock's argument that made me reconsider the most was the notion that the presence of pornography for the consumer - that is, the person watching the porn at some later time and place - knows nothing of the conditions under which it is made, but will still engender feelings that subjugate and objectify women.   I'm iffy on that; we objectify PEOPLE on such a mass scale that I struggle to see a measurable difference - for those that aren't already predisposed to hate women for some other reason - between seeing Scarlett Johansen preen fully clothed in a suspense thriller, Carmen Electra preen half-naked on screen in a horror movie, and seeing Lana Rhodes preening full naked in her own movie.
I think there's another important aspect to that, which is that fantasy is an important and healthy thing, and shouldn't be seen as representative of the actual wants or desires of the person fantasizing. The type of porn a person is into doesn't necessarily represent the behavior or reality they actually approve of or want to participate in. Is objectification bad if it only exists during an isolated period of dream time?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1087 on: August 15, 2019, 10:03:07 AM »
I'm not even sure I'd call him a pimp. Seems to me that pimps are in it to make money from the girls' hard efforts. I don't gather that was happening here. Do we know if he was taking a cut of their money? I'm not sure why he'd bother. It was a pittance compared to his legal income. My hunch is that he was just keeping tabs on a variety of girls who were interested in screwing rich guys for fun and profit. Legally an argument could probably be made that he was still pandering under my interpretation. Realistically I'd call it a stretch.

That applies to the trafficking thing, as well. I have no idea what US code says about trafficking, but I'd be surprised if it didn't include something about bringing in girls from overseas to work as prostitutes. Again, there might be a legal theory that he was doing that, but I'd call it a reach, and more importantly, and insult to the real victims of sex trafficking.

This not my area of (legal) expertise, so I can't comment on that, but I will say that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't make a cent - directly - from these sexcapades.  His base job was one of relationships, and traveling (metaphorically) with the rich and famous was the best way to cultivate that.  He's known for playing up his "Harvard" connections, which are basically that he gave them a shit ton of money to further his scientific endeavors; he never actually attended Harvard (I believe he never actually graduated from ANY college), so for him, I would not be surprised if the company of the wealthy and influential was payment in and of itself.   
That's certainly the argument I'd expect them to make (if he was being charged with pandering). But I'm not sure how you'd prosecute that. In this sense the girls are no different than the aircraft. They're accoutrements. Even if he arranged for them to be there. If I open a nightclub and make it a particularly desirable place for hos to congregate, so as to draw in lots of rich folk, am I a pimp? What if I put a sign on the door that says "hos drink free?"

This gets more complicated as I think about it. I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton didn't have to write a check to the girls he banged on Little Saint James. Epstein himself was paying the girls. Are you still a pimp if you pay the girls yourself to screw other people?

And was he paying them in cash or in kind.  "Hey, here's the dilly; you don't have to work at Chipotle anymore, just come to my island in the Caribbean.  You get to tan, cavort, drink mojitos, and otherwise live the life of luxury, but if someone asks you for a "massage", it's strongly suggested you say "yes, sir, how can I help you?" 

As for "how do you prosecute that", well that's where the "sex trafficking" comes in, because it changes what has to be proved, and it's a way of jacking up the stakes.   

EDIT:  I looked it up; the sex trafficking laws are clear, but there's a loophole of sorts that applies here.    This is the definition, as I understand it:       "The U.S. Government defines sex trafficking as: trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age."

So this means, if Epstein forced, coerced, or induced by fraud, any women to perform a commercial sex act, he's a sex trafficker.   The rape allegations are important here, if they can be shown to be a step in "forcing, coercing, or inducing by fraud".  The loophole is the second part.  IF the woman (it could be men, but we're talking largely about women here) is under 18, it's AUTOMATICALLY sex trafficking, and doesn't require "force, coercion or inducement by fraud".  Again, I'm reading this as a layperson (with some experience in interpreting regulations) but that tells me that the argument hinges around "induce".   If I'm a prosecutor, and this wasn't totally the woman's idea, I'm arguing "inducement" all the way, and as long as the girl is under 18, consent never factors in.  In my "Chipotle" hypothetical, I think you can argue if that girl is not yet 18, that is an "inducement".  https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/human-trafficking/pages/welcome.aspx


When you argue sex trafficking, it changes the potential penalties, and opens up the possibility of, among other things, financial remuneration for the girls involved in this (I think Harmony already pointed this out).
You mixed up the verbiage in the bolded paragraph in a way I think might be meaningful. The definition is "induced by force, fraud, or coercion." The inducement itself isn't a crime in and of itself. The criminality is dependent upon the method of inducement. Inducement with money doesn't qualify. In your example, where is the force, fraud, or coercion that created the inducement?

And again, I'm pretty clear on the fact that the guy broke quite a few laws and was rightly held accountable. I just think the charges they were piling on were a reach, and a disservice to the people the laws were intended to protect.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1088 on: August 15, 2019, 10:12:07 AM »
I tend to agree with you, pretty much down the line.   The part of Moorcock's argument that made me reconsider the most was the notion that the presence of pornography for the consumer - that is, the person watching the porn at some later time and place - knows nothing of the conditions under which it is made, but will still engender feelings that subjugate and objectify women.   I'm iffy on that; we objectify PEOPLE on such a mass scale that I struggle to see a measurable difference - for those that aren't already predisposed to hate women for some other reason - between seeing Scarlett Johansen preen fully clothed in a suspense thriller, Carmen Electra preen half-naked on screen in a horror movie, and seeing Lana Rhodes preening full naked in her own movie.
I think there's another important aspect to that, which is that fantasy is an important and healthy thing, and shouldn't be seen as representative of the actual wants or desires of the person fantasizing. The type of porn a person is into doesn't necessarily represent the behavior or reality they actually approve of or want to participate in. Is objectification bad if it only exists during an isolated period of dream time?

I agree; and I don't think it should be a surprise to anyone that I don't at all think whatever it is is bad if only in idea form. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1089 on: August 15, 2019, 10:33:35 AM »
You mixed up the verbiage in the bolded paragraph in a way I think might be meaningful. The definition is "induced by force, fraud, or coercion." The inducement itself isn't a crime in and of itself. The criminality is dependent upon the method of inducement. Inducement with money doesn't qualify. In your example, where is the force, fraud, or coercion that created the inducement?

I did move the words (I needed a verb in with "fraud"), but I didn't see the change in meaning. The inducement itself is NOT illegal, but only if fraud, coercion or force IS the inducement, and provided the actor is 18 or over.  The problem is that if you read the definition, it's pretty clear that any inducement under 18 IS a crime. 

Quote
And again, I'm pretty clear on the fact that the guy broke quite a few laws and was rightly held accountable. I just think the charges they were piling on were a reach, and a disservice to the people the laws were intended to protect.

Don't disagree. 

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9509
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1090 on: August 28, 2019, 10:32:56 AM »
Hot take care to see if anyone wants the pot stirred: Why do jails have "suicide watch?" If someone wants to off themselves, why can't we let them do it? (assuming they are of sound mind - however you want ot define that?). If Epstein wanted to end it, why is it the prison's duty to ensure it doesn't happen?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25954
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1091 on: August 28, 2019, 10:46:17 AM »
Well, in this case the guy has information.  That makes sense to me.  Now, a convicted murderer set for life and has nothing left to offer wants to off himself, who am I to say no?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1092 on: August 28, 2019, 10:50:17 AM »
Well, in this case the guy has information.  That makes sense to me.  Now, a convicted murderer set for life and has nothing left to offer wants to off himself, who am I to say no?

Wow, good point (seriously; no sarcasm). I generally support someone's right to suicide (though I also see merit in the argument that it ought to be a reasoned, intellectual decision, not an emotional decision made in the moment; suicide prevention, I think, helps to minimize the latter), but it didn't occur to me that it may not be about "keeping the person alive" but "evidence preservation". 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1093 on: August 28, 2019, 11:40:11 AM »
Aside from evidence preservation there's a perverse sense of justice involved. I've already mentioned Epstein's "victims" who are upset that he offed himself. If they feel wronged then this seems like an outstanding outcome, but they're certainly sore about it. But I recall a different case a few years back which I discussed with my boss the Christian conservative. A woman wants to kill herself. She decides the way to do it is to park her car on a railroad track and let BNSF do the hard part. The train hits her car. She somehow survives but the train derails killing an engineer. The state decides to seek the death penalty, which is technically a win for her, but puts her on suicide watch to make sure she can't do it before they can. WTF? My boss said it was crucial that they not let her do it for them, for reasons he never could really explain.

What I can contribute is that I always admired that Goering was able to "beat the system." I'm sure that pissed a few people off. He beat them to the punch and did what others wanted to do. I suspect that's probably where the so-called justice aspect comes from. Not giving the badguy a perceived "win." That's an emotional point of view, though. Despite my dispassionate nature I certainly see the value in an emotional response, but not where justice is concerned. It's also counterproductive. What if the jury sentences Train Girl to life instead of death? What if Lionel Hutz defends her and the automatic appeals tie it up for decades? What if she shanks a one of the screws? What if a guard knocks her up? You're taking on a great deal of risk, cost, and responsibility to delay an outcome that everybody wants.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1094 on: August 28, 2019, 12:08:19 PM »
I don't think you'll argue with me on this point, but that's not "justice", it's "vengeance".   I'm wholly skeptical of the type of cosmic math that needs to happen to drive these arguments.  You allude to that yourself in the last part of your post.  We're humans; we can't even prioritize direct harm to our own selves (smoking? vaping?), and we're arguing that we can somehow evaluate the efficacy of cosmic justice?   

I'm not sure what more is asked for here; I'm not sure I accept the "they want to be heard" point, because many of the victims ARE speaking out, and they have the benefit of not having to prove their case in a court of law, they don't have the burden of countering the defense, etc. etc.  I'm not sure I accept the "punishment" aspect, because the death penalty is the highest level of punishment we have.   Do we accept that some victims are entitled to "blood lust"?  (Honest question, that last one.)
« Last Edit: August 28, 2019, 12:14:21 PM by Stadler »

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1095 on: August 28, 2019, 12:29:09 PM »
El Barto does not.  America does.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25954
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1096 on: August 28, 2019, 12:38:00 PM »
Do we accept that some victims are entitled to "blood lust"?  (Honest question, that last one.)

I don't think anyone is entitled to that, but I've always looked at the death penalty more as a save our resources, than revenge or bloodlust personally.  I'm not a violent person, and would not wish harm on someone, but if someone is back in my situation above of life in prison for murder or some heinous crime and deemed to have pretty much no chance of contributing society, then I don't mind that person dying via themselves or other ways.  I feel like that's a pretty brutal opinion to have these days since everyone thinks life is so precious, but I don't really believe so, especially not when you are essentially an animal at that point and no longer what makes us humans different from the rest of the animals that we slaughter much more violently.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1097 on: August 28, 2019, 01:15:14 PM »
El Barto does not.  America does.

HAHA!    :tup  I love that. 

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9509
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1098 on: August 28, 2019, 10:30:20 PM »
Well, in this case the guy has information.  That makes sense to me.  Now, a convicted murderer set for life and has nothing left to offer wants to off himself, who am I to say no?

Wow, good point (seriously; no sarcasm). I generally support someone's right to suicide (though I also see merit in the argument that it ought to be a reasoned, intellectual decision, not an emotional decision made in the moment; suicide prevention, I think, helps to minimize the latter), but it didn't occur to me that it may not be about "keeping the person alive" but "evidence preservation". 

Huh, never thought of that either. I know that comes in to play with potential death penalty cases. In our state Gary Ridgway (the Green River Killer), confessed to 70+ killings, but made a deal to avoid the death penalty in exchange for info on some victims.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 10184
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1099 on: March 11, 2020, 10:58:23 AM »
Well, I guess everyone's too worried about CoVid-19 that this swept on by.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/harvey-weinstein-awaits-sentencing-for-sex-assault-rape-convictions-in-nyc/2321293/

He has been sentenced to 23 years in prison.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1100 on: March 11, 2020, 11:15:13 AM »
Best news of the day (so far).  Hope he doesn't get to hang out in the infirmary for the entire time he's in prison because of chest pain.  ::)

Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25954
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1101 on: March 11, 2020, 11:57:47 AM »
Yea, this is good news.  Good riddance.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 31098
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1102 on: March 11, 2020, 12:00:14 PM »
I know it's just my personal stance on justice, but for things like this, I always consider them a necessary evil. I never get happy about punishing people or anything but recognize that it's a necessity and am satisfied that he is no longer in a capacity to cause harm.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8266
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1103 on: March 11, 2020, 12:07:48 PM »
I agree, Adami. Well said.
I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the U.S. that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough. Christopher Hitchens

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1104 on: March 11, 2020, 12:10:06 PM »
Same.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1105 on: March 11, 2020, 12:50:08 PM »
Aside from not relishing in the punishment of others, I was also never able to shake the notion that he was being rung up for a lifetime of douchebag behavior rather than the specific charges against him in NY. That never sits well with me. And the length of the sentence kind of supports this. John Smith does 10 years for those two charges, and while that might well be the problem rather than Weinstein's harsh sentence, there's still a fairness problem.

Frankly, I'm still amazed he was dumb enough to stay in this country for the trial. That was either a massive miscalculation or a major lack of foresight. With his money he could have set himself up nicely and run out the clock somewhere pleasant, rather than dying Rikers, which is the likely outcome.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1106 on: March 11, 2020, 02:47:47 PM »
Certainly he needed to be punished, and justice needed to be served, but I'm getting not so subtle notes of vengeance in that bouquet as well.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9509
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1107 on: March 11, 2020, 09:15:02 PM »
I hate to plead ignorance, but does the jury set this, or the judge? From the small bit I read, one juror spoke out on how they deliberated in a very reasoned manner specifically on the charges at hand and not turning it in to a #MeToo issue. He made it sound like they were not being vindictive or strictly out for vengeance.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1108 on: March 11, 2020, 09:30:08 PM »
I hate to plead ignorance, but does the jury set this, or the judge? From the small bit I read, one juror spoke out on how they deliberated in a very reasoned manner specifically on the charges at hand and not turning it in to a #MeToo issue. He made it sound like they were not being vindictive or strictly out for vengeance.
The judge sentences him based on recommendations from the probation department.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9509
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1109 on: March 11, 2020, 09:41:02 PM »
That's a new one. I've been... um, sentenced... a couple times in my life, and while I understood the judge was following guidelines, usually based on agreements between my lawyer and the prosecutor's office, I wouldn't have thought the probation department would be involved in any way.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1110 on: March 11, 2020, 11:21:05 PM »
That's a new one. I've been... um, sentenced... a couple times in my life, and while I understood the judge was following guidelines, usually based on agreements between my lawyer and the prosecutor's office, I wouldn't have thought the probation department would be involved in any way.
I don't think it's that uncommon. I'm pretty sure California works that way, and in the past (40s-50s) I believe the probation department actually determined the length of sentences. Nowadays they just craft a report for the judge providing him with detailed information to make a reasonable decision.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online MirrorMask

  • Posts: 9658
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1111 on: March 23, 2020, 03:50:42 AM »
So, the guy got Coronavirus while in jail.

Calling now the conspiracy theory of him being left to die on purpouse  :D

I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!