No idea as to whether he did this or not. No evidence presented in the article which means, in all likelihood, none presented at trial. Just accusations.
Did these women come forward 20 years ago? Were rape kits performed?
Do you expect every article on a case to go over (or back over) every prior aspect of the case? Especially given that journalists are not lawyers? I haven't followed the case so I can't say what evidence was or wasn't presented, but a claim that none must have been presented at trial because one news article about the sentencing makes no mention of it is just goofy.
Testimony is evidence but there is a common meaning and legal meaning. In common language evidence means a physical item who's existence makes the occurrence of an event more probable. Witness testimony is known to be flawed and increasingly flawed with time. What this thread is saying is if 100% of the evidence is testimony that that should not be enough for a conviction of this severity. Outstanding claims require outstanding evidence.
What I don't understand is why the lawyers weren't jumping on this. A criminal case needs to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and it doesn't seem too tough to convince a jury that the witnesses are (at the very least) unreliable.
Maybe the lawyers realize their client is a scumbag and maybe the victims testimony was outstanding....
Then print that in the articles? Being a scumbag =/= being guilty of a crime. It just reads weird how the articles celebrate the conviction and gloss over the trial. Idk maybe the courtroom stuff was confidential, but it doesn't inspire confidence in the system.
You'd think conservatives would be overjoyed that some Hollywood elitist and scientology freak who starred in a show that promoted drug use and premarital sex is getting what he deserves, but their instinct to side with rapists trumps all. "Sure he was found guilty by a jury, after a three-year investigation by the police, but what's the EVIDENCE???"
You are suggesting that a person's guilt or innocence should be determined by factors other than whether or not a person did the crime.
I may despise a person in every way, and even suspect that they could perform a crime, but that is no reason to find them guilty of one.
That there are people on this thread that are so driven purely by feelings (and, I hate rape and rapists), using no logic or reason whatsoever, it is very scary to imagine where things are headed.
You'd think conservatives would be overjoyed that some Hollywood elitist and scientology freak who starred in a show that promoted drug use and premarital sex is getting what he deserves, but their instinct to side with rapists trumps all. "Sure he was found guilty by a jury, after a three-year investigation by the police, but what's the EVIDENCE???"
You are suggesting that a person's guilt or innocence should be determined by factors other than whether or not a person did the crime.
I may despise a person in every way, and even suspect that they could perform a crime, but that is no reason to find them guilty of one.
That there are people on this thread that are so driven purely by feelings (and, I hate rape and rapists), using no logic or reason whatsoever, it is very scary to imagine where things are headed.
I'm not sure how the CA system works, but in other states many court documents are online and you could probably find them for this case to see how evidence was presented. Or, if you were so invested, you can get the transcripts. Otherwise, we rely on the media for the details.
Interesting story re. Conan calling out Danny way back when ...
Just minutes after Danny Masterson was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for multiple rapes Thursday, an old late-night clip with the actor resurfaced on X, instantly going viral to amass 2.6…
You are suggesting that a person's guilt or innocence should be determined by factors other than whether or not a person did the crime.
I may despise a person in every way, and even suspect that they could perform a crime, but that is no reason to find them guilty of one.
That there are people on this thread that are so driven purely by feelings (and, I hate rape and rapists), using no logic or reason whatsoever, it is very scary to imagine where things are headed.
Wrong! I'm suggesting that a person's guilt or innocence should be determined by the justice system. And it has! YOU are the one who doesn't want to accept the outcome based on unrelated factors. (i.e. your instinctual hatred of women.)
Fwiw, there will be an appeal of his convictions and in a year or two there will be an opinion from the court of appeal. Appellate opinions are public record and are available online—and the opinion will summarize all the evidence that was actually presented in the case.
The testimony of one witness is enough to convict someone of a crime. it’s the jury’s responsibility to determine who is credible and who is not and whether the DA met their burden of proof.
I don't know any of the details of the trial but I thought the sentencing seemed harsher than usual for the crime(s). Read the CA guidelines for sentencing, whatever happened must have been pretty egregious compared to many other situations of like criminal activity.
It's probably because there was evidence the women were drugged before being allegedly raped. That makes it more egregious because the victims would be more vulnerable.
Newname/unkle seems to be suggesting that the jury was somehow manipulated by the prosecutors and media to convict in this case. That seems to be a unfounded conclusion, considering that some members of the jury were likely men and the prosecutors would have done everything possible in their legal power to discredit the accusors.
That seems to be a unfounded conclusion, considering that some members of the jury were likely men and the prosecutors would have done everything possible in their legal power to discredit the accusors.
No, I completely accept the outcome determined by a properly functioning justice system - that guilt is objectively determined by evidence. Perhaps that occurred in this case, and if so, great! It is fair, though, to inquire what the evidence was. If the evidence is just the testimonies from a couple of people about happenings from 20 years ago, then just say it. If there is more, then provide that. Pretty easy, you see.
You just feeling mad does not count as any evidence. So, let's see if you can provide any evidence. If not, then stfu.
Adding to my previous post…re the statute of limitations. masterson was most likely charged under PC 667.61, which is California’s one-strike law for aggravated sex offenses. this includes crimes such as rape during a kidnapping, and rapes against multiple victims and other things. it’s an automatic life sentence if convicted. Under PC 799(a) there isn’t a statute of limitations for those crimes. After the Bill Crosby crimes the CA legislature added PC799 (b)(1) to eliminate the statute of limitations for many other sex offenses. That subdivision is limited by (b)(2) to apply only to crimes where the SOL hadn’t expired by 2017. but that wouldnt have any application to Masterson’s one-strike offenses because those are life crimes without an SOL.
All of this also would have been alleged in the criminal complaint and would have been litigated pre trial. I imagine it was. that’s all public record too but you’d have to go to the court if they’re not online
No, I completely accept the outcome determined by a properly functioning justice system - that guilt is objectively determined by evidence. Perhaps that occurred in this case, and if so, great! It is fair, though, to inquire what the evidence was. If the evidence is just the testimonies from a couple of people about happenings from 20 years ago, then just say it. If there is more, then provide that. Pretty easy, you see.
You just feeling mad does not count as any evidence. So, let's see if you can provide any evidence. If not, then stfu.
re we really putting away a man for 30 years for she said he Said???
Adding to my previous post…re the statute of limitations. masterson was most likely charged under PC 667.61, which is California’s one-strike law for aggravated sex offenses. this includes crimes such as rape during a kidnapping, and rapes against multiple victims and other things. it’s an automatic life sentence if convicted. Under PC 799(a) there isn’t a statute of limitations for those crimes. After the Bill Crosby crimes the CA legislature added PC799 (b)(1) to eliminate the statute of limitations for many other sex offenses. That subdivision is limited by (b)(2) to apply only to crimes where the SOL hadn’t expired by 2017. but that wouldnt have any application to Masterson’s one-strike offenses because those are life crimes without an SOL.
All of this also would have been alleged in the criminal complaint and would have been litigated pre trial. I imagine it was. that’s all public record too but you’d have to go to the court if they’re not online
So it seems the justification for no statute of limitations here is it was an automatic life sentence crime. Why then did he only get 30 years?
That seems to be a unfounded conclusion, considering that some members of the jury were likely men and the prosecutors would have done everything possible in their legal power to discredit the accusors.
His sentence is 30 years to life. That’s a life sentence under CA law. It just means he is eligible for a parole hearing after serving 30 years but there is no guarantee he will be released. But also, what matters for SOL purposes is that he was charged with a one-strike offense. And the way that works is that he is charged with the crime—i.e., forcible rape—and then charged with the additional allegation bringing it under the one-strike law.
there are two different tiers of one-strike allegations, one set that brings a sex offense to a sentence of 25 years to life and another that brings them to 15 years to life.
my guess—and it’s a guess as I haven’t seen any of the charging documents—is that he was charged with and the jury found true allegations on the two rapes under 667.61(e)(6) which pertains to administering drugs to someone and then raping them. that would’ve made the sentence on each of the two rapes 15 years to life and thus 30 years to life total. (E)(4) also would provide the same penalty if the jury found he raped multiple victims (which it found)
The default presupposition for these claims has flipped 180 degrees for me in recent years.
If someone is accused of rape, it is no longer enough to be passively objective-- you must actively disbelieve the woman unless there is an extraordinary amount of evidence that she isn't lying. Basically, I could only now believe these sorts of claims if there is continuous video evidence taken from multiple neutral 3rd complete with time stamps and digital signatures/meta data giving cryptographically probabilistic security that the videos authentic and unaltered.
And even then, that might not meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" if, like in this case, the women ever said the encounter was acceptable.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
