Brickbat: Get 'Em Next Time

New York lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow evidence of past sexual offenses to be introduced in sex crimes trials. The bill is named for Harvey Weinstein, the movie mogul whose rape conviction was tossed out by the state Court of Appeals because the trial judge allowed testimony about alleged
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Skin color is the most important thing
It does seem to be important to rapists, as white men very rarely rape Black women, and Black men who are rapists disproportionately rape white women.
This isn't for you, but for people who understand numbers.
A scrupulously color-blind rapist with no racial preferences would rape 59% whites, 19% Hispanics, 13% blacks, and the remainder of other races. So, in actuality, black rapists disproportionally go after black victims.
Your assuming that everyone's access to people of all colors is equal. In reality, we live in a very segregated country. A Black rapist would have far more access to Black women than to white women in most places.
Where to start?
The assumption that justice is determined by color, and what is fair to a defendant of one race would be unfair to a defendant of another race?
Or the lack of any need to cite rigorous studies to back up claims against a particular race?
""Most rapists that are serial rapists – which is what we're talking about here because multiple victims – are privileged white men," Paulin said."
Putting aside the assertion that "serial rapists" are white men, that this is not out of bounds because the targets are white men is a staggering admission of bias.
If whites make up a majority of the population, whites probably make up a similar majority of the criminals. That's an obvious first approximation.
Of course, she'd hate to have to trot out the actual statistics.
A Pittsburgh City Councilwoman stated that 85% of the people arrested in her District were Black. When it was pointed out that 95% of the residents in her District WERE Black, she said "I don't care arrest more White people".
Black peeples don't need no facts or logic! Them is white honky bullshit.
because multiple victims – are privileged white men
Yes, I suspect most victims of this law would be privileged white men.
""Putting aside the assertion that “serial rapists” are white men,""
Well, Bill Cosby did have privilege.
...it has met resistance in the Assembly, where some members have expressed concern it could have a disproportionate impact on men of color.
Or on men of the Assembly.
NY Democrats purifying their State of Trump and the White Male.
Repeal the 19th.
People look at aggressive and anti-social behavior in women and in men, and in women it tends to take the expression of innuendo, gossip and reputation destruction. In men, it tends to take the form of outright physical aggression. There’s a whole literature on that. It’s not a surprise to anyone. This has been known for 30 years.
Prediction: In 5-10 yrs. all the trans misogynists will be testifying about their trysts with (allegedly) promiscuous and apostate AWFLs and women and feminists will never see it coming.
Historic first female lesbian BIPOC President Donna J. Rump will be taken down over allegations that Dan Torrents had sex with her without paying.
ENB will hold up bags of infectious medical waste as proof that abortion is sacrosanct and IVF should be protected but not subsidized.
"Repeal the 19th."
Yup. Letting women vote empowered the nanny contingent, which might be worse for liberty than Marxism.
The overlap between "the nanny contingent" and Marxism is virtually complete, even when the nannies are not "trained Marxists".
Assembly member Paulin may be a reader of the Reason comments section, and be familiar with Pluggo, Biden, and Epstein’s clients which may have colored her whitewashing of things.
"of past sexual offenses to be introduced in sex crimes trials"
Somehow I don't think that this means convictions. I'm thinking more along the lines of accusations and rumors.
I seem to remember something about a Across team in North Carolina. Then there was the Pro-football Running back who was accused of rape. It was later found out that the "victim" and one of her College Professors fabricated it to extort money.
OGAG - Once Guilty Always Guilty.
Where's that photo of Harvey Weinstein joking with his buddy De Niro?
"Most rapists that are serial rapists – which is what we're talking about here because multiple victims – are privileged white men," Paulin said.
Can they cite any stats on that? My first guess would be that Black men are disproportionately rapists, as they disproportionately commit other types of violent crime.
I've never heard of a black serial rapist - with "serial rapist" defined as someone who often rapes strangers, rather than someone who has raped many of his female acquaintances. But that's a tiny proportion of rapes. Paying attention only to serial rapists is the same illogic the left displays by focusing on school shootings, ignoring the greater number of children murdered one at a time by gangs outside of school, as well as the hundreds of times as many other murders.
So, why ISN'T it relevant that a defendant has committed the crime he is accused of before? Seems to be common sense to look at that.
If one is investigating a crime yes. If you're pursuing a commercial burglary of a warehouse, you're gonna look first at people with prior convictions for similar offenses. Once you get to trial, you have to go with the evidence of the current offense; prior bad acts are not evidence of current guilt. (Assuming, of course, that the defendant doesn't try to argue "I've never done anything like this before!)
prior bad acts are not evidence of current guilt.
Who made up that silly rule? Prior bad acts of the same kind certainly are relevant to current guilt.
The prejudicial aspect outweighs the probative aspect in almost all cases.
Only when you populate juries with the stupidest 10% of a jury pool selected by a random drawing.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/weinstein-trial-spotlights-prior-bad-acts-witnesses/story?id=68082022
Cosby vs Weinstein cases
“When you look at Andrea Constand, she had all kinds of credibility problems,” University of Colorado law professor and former defense attorney Aya Gruber told ABC News. “Even some of those prior bad acts witnesses -- they were not altogether great witnesses individually.”
“But when you start adding them all up, jurors start saying, ‘wait a second: they may all have individual issues, but what are the chances they would all come forward” and lie, Gruber said.
““You’re not supposed to do this. You’re not supposed to say, ‘Well, if I had to find each of these beyond a reasonable doubt, I wouldn’t, but putting them altogether? Eh. Sure.’ That’s exactly what’s not supposed to happen.”
I absolutely love it when the woke left engages in cannibalism.