PDA

View Full Version : Statue of limitations hit, but still getting punished..



garhkal
10-08-2014, 09:43 PM
Interesting. Apparently an actor by the name of Stephen collins is losing a lot of work/pay (being pulled from Ted 2, resigning from the screen writers guild, etc), but due to statue of limitations, will not face any actual criminal proceedings.

Anyone else find this rather unfair?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/showbiz/stephen-collins-molestation-probe/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Measure Man
10-08-2014, 10:10 PM
Interesting. Apparently an actor by the name of Stephen collins is losing a lot of work/pay (being pulled from Ted 2, resigning from the screen writers guild, etc), but due to statue of limitations, will not face any actual criminal proceedings.

Anyone else find this rather unfair?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/showbiz/stephen-collins-molestation-probe/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Not at all. He might be saved from criminal prosecutions, but not from all negative consequences.

TJMAC77SP
10-08-2014, 10:44 PM
If you assume the audio tape is legitimate then not unfair at all.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
10-08-2014, 10:52 PM
What's a "statue" of limitations look like? Is it prominently displayed somewhere for everyone to see?

LogDog
10-08-2014, 11:55 PM
Interesting. Apparently an actor by the name of Stephen collins is losing a lot of work/pay (being pulled from Ted 2, resigning from the screen writers guild, etc), but due to statue of limitations, will not face any actual criminal proceedings.

Anyone else find this rather unfair?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/showbiz/stephen-collins-molestation-probe/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
These are allegations and not proven facts, yet, so he's innocent until proven guilty.

He isn't like an employee who works in a store, on a factory floor, or and office. He's an actor and therefor is more of an independent contractor of his services (actor) and he has to convince others to hire him. Potential employers (producers) will determine if they want someone who has allegations of child molestation to be associated with their movie or TV program that would affect their revenue.

garhkal
10-09-2014, 06:20 AM
True he 'should be innocent till proven guilty', but with how today's companies are, even just an allegation of wrong doing is enough to get fired, not hired, dropped from adverts etc.
It like with Travon martin/Zimmerman, he was tried in the court of public opinion in a lot of areas, before Zimmerman was even charged and sent to court. Same thing the people out in St Louis are trying to do with that Officer.

sandsjames
10-09-2014, 11:24 AM
What seems pretty common lately is that everyone uses the "innocent until proven guilty" argument for everything when I'm sure you realize that only applies legally, correct? It's like saying "I saw my neighbor beating his wife but since he hasn't been convicted of it yet I have to assume he hasn't done anything wrong."

LogDog
10-09-2014, 05:25 PM
What seems pretty common lately is that everyone uses the "innocent until proven guilty" argument for everything when I'm sure you realize that only applies legally, correct? It's like saying "I saw my neighbor beating his wife but since he hasn't been convicted of it yet I have to assume he hasn't done anything wrong."
It's one thing if you saw someone do something and another thing when someone is accused of doing something that you didn't witness or have sufficient evidence of the allegation.

When someone is publicly accused of wrongdoing friends, acquaintances, employers (including potential), etc. look and treat, in most cases, the person differently. Ideally, it shouldn't be that way but human nature goes into a protection mode shunning the accused.

If the allegations against him are true and if he can be held legally for his crimes then he should be held accountable. If the allegations are false, then the accuser should, likewise, be held accountable.

sandsjames
10-09-2014, 05:36 PM
It's one thing if you saw someone do something and another thing when someone is accused of doing something that you didn't witness or have sufficient evidence of the allegation. Is it? Eye witness accounts are thrown out regularly in cases. So I guess if the court says that the witness didn't see what they thought they saw that the witness should go back to treating the person the way they did before.


If the allegations against him are true and if he can be held legally for his crimes then he should be held accountable. If the allegations are false, then the accuser should, likewise, be held accountable.Being held accountable in criminal court is completely different from being held accountable outside of court. If they were the same, we'd have no need for both criminal and civil cases pertaining to the same crime.

TJMAC77SP
10-09-2014, 06:02 PM
Are we talking in generalities now or this case specifically?

In this case specifically no one is taking legal action against him because they can't.

Others are taking administrative action against him because they can and the basis of that is evidently his own words on tape. If the tape turns out to be bogus then he has cause for civil relief.

Measure Man
10-09-2014, 06:41 PM
If the allegations against him are true and if he can be held legally for his crimes then he should be held accountable. If the allegations are false, then the accuser should, likewise, be held accountable.

Just because he can not be held legally for the crimes does not mean the allegations are false.

If the statute of limitations has indeed expired, that doesn't make him innocent, nor does it make the allegations false.

Even if he were to go to trial and is found not guilty, that doesn't mean the alleger lied or made any false statement...criminal trials do not find the accused innocent, they only determine that guilt was not proven.

It is perfectly fair to be found not guilty of a crime, or in this case not tried at all, but still suffer outside consequences such as loss of your job. Heck, you can lose your job for stuff that is not even illegal, especially with a public/famous person!

Stalwart
10-09-2014, 07:46 PM
As an actor, his 'likability' is a factor that get's him roles. Even if he isn't guilty, the the air of something that makes him less marketable is just part of the job, which is why so many celebrities have publicists.

garhkal
10-09-2014, 11:09 PM
It's one thing if you saw someone do something and another thing when someone is accused of doing something that you didn't witness or have sufficient evidence of the allegation.

When someone is publicly accused of wrongdoing friends, acquaintances, employers (including potential), etc. look and treat, in most cases, the person differently. Ideally, it shouldn't be that way but human nature goes into a protection mode shunning the accused.

If the allegations against him are true and if he can be held legally for his crimes then he should be held accountable. If the allegations are false, then the accuser should, likewise, be held accountable.

Exactly. Even when the allegations are proven false (or the guy is just acquitted) we still see stigma attached.

Measure Man
12-17-2014, 07:25 PM
So here's his new confession:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2877620/I-did-terribly-wrong-Shamed-7th-Heaven-actor-Stephen-Collins-pens-confession-detailing-multple-times-exposed-underage-women.html

garhkal
12-17-2014, 08:23 PM
Ouch.. So he has come clean. So hitting his acting chops is ok, but since statues have ran out, any criminal charges shouldn't be coming.

Rusty Jones
12-17-2014, 08:26 PM
So here's his new confession:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2877620/I-did-terribly-wrong-Shamed-7th-Heaven-actor-Stephen-Collins-pens-confession-detailing-multple-times-exposed-underage-women.html

I read about Stephen Collins earlier this morning. I guess he wants some of Bill Cosby's spotlight. No such thing as bad publicity, right?

Rollyn01
12-17-2014, 08:29 PM
I read about Stephen Collins earlier this morning. I guess he wants some of Bill Cosby's spotlight. No such thing as bad publicity, right?

If they do a documentary on those Catholic priest, I'm sure they'll have their man.

Measure Man
12-17-2014, 09:04 PM
I read about Stephen Collins earlier this morning. I guess he wants some of Bill Cosby's spotlight. No such thing as bad publicity, right?

I would guess Cosby's publicists are watching closely to see how it works out for him...similar cases, right? Two beloved TV Dads whose real-life conduct caught up with them...not legally, but in terms of their reputation and employability.

Probably both are done for, I'm sure...at least as far as ever working in this town again.

Cosby may still be able to do stand-up tours or something....

Measure Man
12-17-2014, 09:35 PM
Ouch.. So he has come clean. So hitting his acting chops is ok, but since statues have ran out, any criminal charges shouldn't be coming.

Statutes, man, STATUTES.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 12:45 AM
What seems pretty common lately is that everyone uses the "innocent until proven guilty" argument for everything when I'm sure you realize that only applies legally, correct? It's like saying "I saw my neighbor beating his wife but since he hasn't been convicted of it yet I have to assume he hasn't done anything wrong."

Indeed. In fact, a more full paraphrase would be the accused is "presumed innocent until proven guilty."

He is not innocent until proven guilty, he is treated as if he is, legally, by the court.

The real gist of this phrase is that whoever accuses someone has the burden of proving their accusations. The accused person does not have any burden to prove their innocence. They do not have to say anything at all or provide any defense...if the accuser does not have proof, only accusations, then the defendent should be found "not guilty"...which is till not "innocent"...courts do not find people innocent.

Similarly, in civil cases, the Plaintiff has the burden of proof since they are bringing the case.

Although in criminal trials, the prosecution has to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt"...in a civil case, the plaintiff only has to prove their case with "a preponderance of the evidence" , also known as 51% or "more likely than not"

garhkal
04-03-2015, 06:07 AM
While that is true, it seems these days MORE than anything else, people are getting "Found guilty by the public" even before all the facts get known, and even IF/when they get to court and are found innocent, they are pretty much tarnished for life.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 04:02 PM
While that is true, it seems these days MORE than anything else, people are getting "Found guilty by the public" even before all the facts get known,

I agree with you here. I don't like it, either.


and even IF/when they get to court and are found innocent, they are pretty much tarnished for life.

...the point is taken, even untrue, baseless accusations in the media can tarnish someone's reputation, and it is very difficult to combat against...Freedom of the Press is enumerated in the Bill of Rights...and as long as they write what is true:

"Bill Cosby has been accused by a woman of raping her." Is a true statement, whether he actually did it or not.

Perhaps a wave of journalistic ethics could turn this around...start expecting legitimate news organizations to wait until the facts are in...though I'm not sure the other result is any better...when someone is accused of or even being tried for a serious crime and the community can't know about it?

I dunno...difficult issue. It would be nice if they'd make the "found Not guilty" headline at least as large as the "Is Accused of" headline.

garhkal
04-03-2015, 09:50 PM
I dunno...difficult issue. It would be nice if they'd make the "found Not guilty" headline at least as large as the "Is Accused of" headline.

That it would. But since often they spend days if not WEEKS, writing the bad stuff, how really is making a one time 'big headline of the person's innocence" going to make a difference?