By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com
When word came out today that Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction had been overturned, my thoughts turned immediately to a sign I once saw way down yonder in the office of the Liberty County, Texas, district attorney.
It spoke to the desire to see a conviction “upheld on a technicality.”
Of course, that never happens. Technicalities usually result in situations such as what happened today.
Cosby is going home after serving two years of a sentence in which he was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman after giving her high-powered drugs. The technicality? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Cosby was denied due process because a prosecuting attorney had said there was insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. That prosecutor left, was replaced by someone else, who then brought the case to a trial that produced a conviction for the still-disgraced former comic and film/TV icon.
Bill Cosby was denied his constitutional Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination, the court said in its 79-page opinion.
Bill Cosby Released From Prison After Sexual Assault Conviction Overturned (msn.com)
Two things about this case deserve brief mention.
One is that a conviction reversal involving someone with the kind of celebrity status as Bill Cosby has pushed most of the other grim news aside; the nation now is going to talk about Cosby rather than talking about other stuff, such as phony election theft and related matters.
The other thing is that Bill Cosby is — in many Americans’ eyes — still a convicted sexual assailant despite the court’s decision to overturn the conviction. to my way of thinking, the legal technicality that sprung Cosby loose from the slammer does not wipe away what a trial jury concluded.
John:
1) The Fifth Amendment does not say that it applies only to accused persons who are obviously squeaky clean.
2) You write that “the legal technicality that sprung Cosby loose from the slammer does not wipe away what a trial jury concluded.” But if Cosby’s constitutional right had been upheld, there probably wouldn’t have been a trial, hence not a conclusion.
3) Which of YOUR Constitutional rights would you give up to ensure that sleazy, despicable low-lifes would be held accountable for acts of which they were accused?
Stay well and keep stirring the pot!
I guess I shouldn’t have equated the Fifth to a “technicality,” although in this context it appears to my way of thinking to have been degraded just a bit. Thanks for the comment, Cathy. I appreciate you.
Give my kind regards to the Perfesser, please.