The Round Stable

Using the fact that women are downtrodden to get someone in a position where you can tread down really fucking hard.

I feel angry.

This really isn't something that should feel mundane but I'm really starting to feel like this is what is to be expected from Hollywood.

All that can really be done from here is to catch offenders and sentence them. Not only would catching them mean less of them outside of prison but it would also make an example out of them, deterring other possible offenders to at least some degree.

I think justice as done by the law deters very few people. Nobody expects to be the person who gets caught, and abuse of this kind still has an abysmal conviction rate. The majority of sexual abuse is done at the hands of people you trust, who have a good reputation among their peers and who understand how to bully you into silence. The law alone can't fix this - The general populace needs to be sensibilized for the subject, needs to learn to trust victims when they come forward, and needs to understand how we can all help create a society where this sorta shit doesn't fly. It's a multifaceted and slow process, but IMO it's the only way to truly improve things. People should be punished for their crimes, but it's simply not the solution to abuse happening in the first place.

Perrydotto wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:34 am

I think justice as done by the law deters very few people. Nobody expects to be the person who gets caught, and abuse of this kind still has an abysmal conviction rate. The majority of sexual abuse is done at the hands of people you trust, who have a good reputation among their peers and who understand how to bully you into silence. The law alone can't fix this - The general populace needs to be sensibilized for the subject, needs to learn to trust victims when they come forward, and needs to understand how we can all help create a society where this sorta shit doesn't fly. It's a multifaceted and slow process, but IMO it's the only way to truly improve things. People should be punished for their crimes, but it's simply not the solution to abuse happening in the first place.

this

making an example of bad behavior only after it counts as criminal may deter others from crossing the same line, or it may simply be all the more reason to double down, to avoid being caught doing so, and to be prepared to go down on their own terms in the event that they do

Perrydotto wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:34 am

I think justice as done by the law deters very few people. Nobody expects to be the person who gets caught, and abuse of this kind still has an abysmal conviction rate.

There's your problem. Even if they do get caught, the odds of suffering lasting consequences is questionable at best. The way I see it, pre-meditated crimes such as these are like gambling. Risk here is defined as the odds of failure and the severity of the consequences. Risk would be low when the probability of failure is low as well as the severity of the consequences. For this to change meaningfully, both the probability of getting caught is going to have to increase as well as the severity of the consequences.

Sure, the justice system right now seems quite ineffective in the status quo. What I'm saying is that this really shouldn't be the case. In a better world, the justice apparatus would not only catch these people with high accuracy but the punishment would have to be quite severe. I've been thinking that child sexual abuse should carry the same sentence as murder or pre-meditated murder depending on the circumstances.

And yes...

Jill wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:54 am

making an example of bad behavior only after it counts as criminal may deter others from crossing the same line, or it may simply be all the more reason to double down, to avoid being caught doing so, and to be prepared to go down on their own terms in the event that they do

It does mean that the person will have to put more effort into doubling down. My assumption is that only the people with high enough tolerance for risk will go the trouble while individuals with lower tolerance for risk will abandon such prospects. If the risk is being increased, we're essentially filtering out the individuals with low risk tolerance, leaving fewer individuals with higher risk tolerances. It may not have dealt with the problem entirely but at the very least, the number of individuals committing these crimes would decrease.

In fact, why not apply this logic in reverse? Would you agree that individuals with lower tolerances for risk may be more susceptible to participating in these acts when they see others not get caught nor face serious consequences?

The point of having a criminal justice system like we do is to ensure we can be certain of someone having actually committed a crime before people go placing consequences on them. There's no arguing against trusting victims and punishing perpetrators, but you need to identify the perpetrator with a great degree of certainty before enacting a punishment. There does need to be a process in which evidence is gathered in order to prove someone's guilt beyond reasoned doubt before exacting punishment. There have been problems in our criminal justice system and I grant that, but I wonder what specifically we're looking to change. I just feel like there's an undertone of suggesting a mob mentality which strikes me as something which would be cathartic but unjust.

At least in my case, that's not what I mean. It's more that I'm arguing in favor of more awareness and sensibility for the kind of culture that perpetuates and enables sexual abuse. I don't want the law to be replaced by witch hunts, I want people to be sincere and safe and to understand what kinds of behaviour (sexism, making light of abuse, no proper understanding of consent, victim blaming, etc.) give abusers relative safety in the first place. I'm simply saying that's not going to happen based on our legal system alone, because punishments have shown to be very bad at actually deterring criminals. Education of the general population and empowerment of groups particularly targeted by abuse as well as vastly improving the sensitivity and resources our justice systems have for abuse cases are all necessary factors.

I can see that I misunderstood your point now. You want to create a society in which the perpetrators can't hide behind the smokescreen that rape culture throws up. A society like this would be able to point a spotlight on an abuser, and might even be able to gather the evidence and actually take the evidence seriously. Rather than creating a witch hunt, it would actually make a criminal trial fairer.

Exactly. As things stand these days, we still largely deal with both the court of public opinion AND the actual legal court generally being woefully misinformed and unprepared for abuse cases. Things like #MeToo have shifted this a bit and hopefully will continue to do so, but it's a long and rocky process.

West Filly wrote:The point of having a criminal justice system like we do is to ensure we can be certain of someone having actually committed a crime before people go placing consequences on them. There's no arguing against trusting victims and punishing perpetrators, but you need to identify the perpetrator with a great degree of certainty before enacting a punishment. There does need to be a process in which evidence is gathered in order to prove someone's guilt beyond reasoned doubt before exacting punishment. There have been problems in our criminal justice system and I grant that, but I wonder what specifically we're looking to change. I just feel like there's an undertone of suggesting a mob mentality which strikes me as something which would be cathartic but unjust.

I'm very much in agreement there.

The justice system has problems. The process by which such cases are solved needs a lot of improvement. Lamentably, I can't really think of anything here as I've very little idea of how such matters are processed.

Perrydotto wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:42 pm

At least in my case, that's not what I mean. It's more that I'm arguing in favor of more awareness and sensibility for the kind of culture that perpetuates and enables sexual abuse. I don't want the law to be replaced by witch hunts, I want people to be sincere and safe and to understand what kinds of behaviour (sexism, making light of abuse, no proper understanding of consent, victim blaming, etc.) give abusers relative safety in the first place. I'm simply saying that's not going to happen based on our legal system alone, because punishments have shown to be very bad at actually deterring criminals. Education of the general population and empowerment of groups particularly targeted by abuse as well as vastly improving the sensitivity and resources our justice systems have for abuse cases are all necessary factors.

Oh. Thank you for clarifying.
Yes, raising awareness of these issues is a good thing, no question there. People need to be thinking about these matters more no matter how uncomfortable it is to do so.

Now that I think about it, punishments are indeed bad at serving as a deterrent. At the very least, keeping the person behind bars would reduce the harm done by said individual. Even with repeated recidivism, longer sentences would limit the damage done by said individual the longer they're kept imprisoned as long as they get caught and sentenced just as often. If sexual abuse of children really were to be sentenced like murder and the sentencing done cumulatively, serial offenders could easily get life sentences. Their days of abuse would effectively be over.

This isn't Hollywood related but still belongs in this topic. You may recall that a while back that Nabuhiro Watsuki, creator of the popular manga series Rurouni Kenshin, was caught with possession of child pornography. And his punishment? It's just a measly fine. And, to make matters worse, he gets to go back and resume work on Rurouni Kenshin in a few months (which I was surprised to hear is actually still going) with Shonen Jump only apologizing for the hiatus.

So, yeah, Japan's judicial system and Shonen Jump themselves really dropped the ball on this one. Not only should this guy serve some jail time but Shonen Jump should be dropping Rurouni Kenshin from their publication entirely. Separate the art from the artist is one thing, but to let that artist who was caught red handed get to go back to making his comic (and, in case you didn't know, Shonen Jump is a comic magazine whose target audience is children) is just... all kinds of gross.

Of course here in the states we have celebrities that get caught doing heinous shit too and they get to go on to have successful careers without being punished for their crimes so I guess we're not ones to talk either.

The cynical part of me wonders how much more likely it is for him to actually get sentenced because he's a black guy and thus easier to throw under the bus, while white guys are more likely to weasel out of a proper punishment. We'll see I guess.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I guess we're going to have to see what happens when (if?) Harvey Weinstein stands trial.

At the same time, I don't want to downplay what Cosby did. He got away with this shit for over 40 years, far longer than any of us in this forum has been alive.

Yeah, in no way shape or form would I excuse any of these bastards and their horrifying crimes. I'm just morbidly curious how even at this level, privilege and lack thereof might play into things. Like you said, we'll have to see what happens with Harvey Weinstein.

Given the almost Bond-villain lengths Weinstein went to to keep his victims quiet, I imagine there's at least more that he can be charged with. Either that or there'll be pressure to make some of it illegal.

Given Bill Cosby's age and (now heavily tarnished) fame, I expect he'll be sentenced to spend the rest of his life in house arrest. Isn't he dealing with some sort of dementia, too?

Pocket wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:27 am

Either that or there'll be pressure to make some of it illegal.

There are some attempts. In New York they introduced a bill that would void NDAs if they involve sexual assault. I believe there are other states are that are working on similar bills as well.

John Lasseter's 6-months "sabbatical" is set to end soon, with Disney still keeping mum about his future at the company after reports of sexual harassment came out.

The article mentions that the Pixar HR director Lori McAdams is leaving the company. She is described as one of John Lasseter's chief protectors, although it doesn't elaborate on that.

Hopefully Disney won’t just try to reinstate him, but them keeping quiet about the situation is not encouraging.

The Disney/Pixar staff they interviewed seems to think his return is unlikely, but yeah, Disney is oddly silent about it, not even giving a stock boilerplate "we take these allegations seriously" note that other companies have given in the wake of the scandals.

Disney appears to be hoping people will forget about this and that the issue can be dropped quietly.

I should’ve read the article better. But Disney hates bad press, so yeah, they’re probably hoping for the story to go away.

After the verdict, Bill Cosby's lawyers said they are going to appeal, but Cosby may have a hard time with that because he's already lost a lot of money paying for his legal fees. Reruns of his shows were taken off the air, cutting off a key revenue stream, and no venue is booking him for stand up in light of the news.

Also, some of you remember about the revelations of John K. a month ago. After the news came out, John deleted all of his social media accounts except Instagram, where he's still selling his wares to his few remaining fans as if nothing happened. He (or someone close to him) has also been deleting any comments calling out his behaviors 24/7.

I swear, some guys have the nerve...

It’s R. Kelly’s turn, probably the least surprising accusation out of all them so far. There have been stories about this guy going back over 20 years.

Heh, surprised it took this long. There was even an episode of "The Boondocks" about R. Kelly's trial (and the subsequent real life acquittal) from the early 2000s .

The Film Academy kicked out both Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski.

It only took, what, 40 years (and 5 Oscar Nominations, with 1 Win) for them to kick Polanski out? Man, they move fast, huh?

Polanski had a lot of defenders, and they happily helped sweep his shit under the rug. I'm sadly not surprised it took this long for someone to actually do something.

Ah. Yeah, I remember there was a long list of actors and actresses who petitioned to have them drop Polanski's charges.

There will always be enablers, needless to say (John K. certainly had people covering up his behavior). Which reminds me, can criminal charges be brought against people who enable those who commit sexual abuse, or is that one of those things that's hard to prove?

Believing that a friend is innocent doesn't make you a criminal. You'd have to prove that the actions of these people directly led to a crime or intentionally prevented a crime from being solved, I think.

What crime exactly could they be guilty of?

I'm not questioning the immorality of this kind of cover up, the question is literally as above. I'd like to page FactoryFactory to the thread.

Mr. Big wrote: ↑

Thu May 03, 2018 7:12 pm

[C]an criminal charges be brought against people who enable those who commit sexual abuse, or is that one of those things that's hard to prove?

Yes, if there is an agreement with the perpetrator to specifically follow a course of conduct that would lead to criminal sexual abuse. This is the crime of Conspiracy. You have to be able to prove that the person knew that what they were agreeing would naturally lead to the commission of another criminal offense.

In a jurisdiction with a Good Samaritan law, one could also be charged under that law if you had specific knowledge of a crime being committed but chose not to report it.

If you do not have any direct evidence of a crime being committed, saying that you didn't believe a crime was committed is not, itself, criminal. It may or may not be a dick move, depending on the circumstances.

Once you know a crime has been crimed, you are potentially on the hook for all sorts of exciting charges like perjury (lying) or obstruction of justice (trying to fuck up an investigation).

Thanks for clearing that up! So it really does depend based on numerous factors.

On another note, writer Junot Díaz is accused of sexual harassment.

On a related note, the committee that selects the Nobel Prize in Literature has postponed this year’s award:

At the center of the scandal is Jean-Claude Arnault, a 71-year-old photographer with close ties to the academy stretching over three decades. Mr. Arnault is married to a member of the academy, the poet Katarina Frostenson, and is a close friend of other members. The couple owns the Forum, a well-known cultural center in Stockholm that received funding from the academy.

In November, the newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported that he had groped, harassed or assaulted at least 18 women over the years.

Accusers said that Mr. Arnault used his sway in the arts world, including his connections to the academy, to pressure young women into sex, and that some of his offenses took place at academy-owned properties in Stockholm and Paris.

What’s more, Arnault’s friends on the committee may well have been complicit in keeping past accusers quiet. So far, the only committee member to hold Arnault accountable, Sara Danius, is also the only one who was forced to step down amid protests. Gee, I wonder why.

You know the New York Attorney General who's suing Harvey Weinstein for his abuse?

Well, four women just came forward that he had physically abused them.

EDIT: He has resigned. No clue what will happen to his lawsuit against Weinstein.

The least surprising opinion ever uttered to a reporter: Roman Polanski denounces #metoo, calls it "mass hysteria".



I'm disappointed in Ms. Geimer's opinion, but as the survivor, she is entitled to think as she pleases. However, I will point out that two things can be true at the same time: the Academy can be full of hypocrites, as I'm sure it is, and Polanski's expulsion can still be 100% deserved. Which it is.

Edit: Now he’s suing the Academy over it, according to the Guardian.

God, what a fucking thin-skinned scumbag. Polanski should have his awards revoked, but that won't happen because he's rich and famous and considered a genius.

Look at it this way: Polanski might be required to travel to the US to make his case against the Academy. In that case, his options are not to travel, lose money and time, and basically humiliate himself for the privilege of remaining free. Or, he can come to the US and get chucked in prison, where he belongs.

Either way it’s a self-own. The Academy rules allow it to admit or throw out any member it pleases, so his case doesn’t have much merit. He’s just an asshole.

One of John K's victim wrote a Twitter thread saying she had an abortion at age 18 after she got impregnated by him The thread's here. Warning for content.

I cringed when I saw who it was that picked her up from the clinic. Oh lord, do I remember him from message boards I frequented at (PM me if you're curious)

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

That's all I could really add to the conversation.

So John K posted this apology via Facebook.

By apology, I mean the most manipulative thing I've read in years. It looks like something a horror novelist would come up with, and then reject because they found it too unrealistic.