This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I guess it's sex crimes week on The Motte. Here is one I've been puzzling about.
How on Earth was Danny Masterson actually convicted?
This has been a slow boil for me. I'd seen headlines here and there about the slow rolling case against him. I totally missed when the first trial went to a hung jury. Then suddenly I see he was convicted on 2 out of 3 rape charges and sentenced to 30 years. Even saw some headlines about Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis getting dragged for writing a character witness letter for his sentencing. But something jumped out at me.
He was being prosecuted for crimes 17-19 years old at the time the prosecution started. Red flag number one, I don't know the specific law in CA, but surely that's pushing the statute of limitations, right? Indeed it is! Statute of Limitations for rape is 10 years. So how did they still prosecute him?
Well there are a few exceptions.. Namely
What appears to have sunk Masterson's SOL is that there are multiple accusers. Now reading the law myself, the reading seems clear to me. The exception requires a seperate conviction. But I'm no lawyer or judge, obviously.
Or
And I believe this is the part pertaining to SOL
So I donno, maybe it's not as clear cut as I think. I repeat, not a lawyer.
Moving past the SOL concerns I have, what was the evidence against Masterson? Near as I can tell none. There were 3 victim testimonies, some expert testimony, and that was it. Zero evidence corroborating the witnesses, zero physical evidence, zero circumstantial evidence. And this is why SOL is so important. It's not a get out of jail free card. It exists so the defense can practically gather some evidence to exonerate their client. After 20 years, most physical evidence will be gone, alibis will be impossible, witnesses will be difficult to find and their testimony will be even more unreliable than already notoriously unreliable witness testimony. All we're left with is he said/she said, and the biases of the jury pool.
This was an idle, principled frustration for me. I honestly could give a shit about Danny Masterson. However, now that figures more politically salient, like Russell Brand, are in the crosshairs, the precedent set by Masterson's chilling conviction are all the more frightening.
That provision has nothing to do with the statute of limitations. CA Penal Code sec 1385 simply permits the court to dismiss charges or enhancement allegations "in the interests of justice." The relevant CA penal code section re statutes of limitations is Section 799, which states that prosecution for rape "may be commenced at any time."
That is enough, if the jury believes them.
That is very common in criminal trials (as well as civil trials). And determining who is lying and who is telling the truth is what juries do. The unanimity requirement (and CA uses 12 jurors, unlike some states) and beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof hopefully provides some protection for defendants; that being said, I share your criticism of lengthy or nonexistent statutes of limitations. I am merely describing the law and explaining how the conviction happened, not defending it.
Except?
Which is consistent with what I read about how murky the decision about SOL of limitations in the Masterson case were. This enhanced SOL statute had a grandfather clause. The article I read state the only way around the grandfather clause were the aggravating circumstances outlined in CA's "One Strike Law". My reading of those circumstances is that they don't apply to Masterson since there was no prior conviction. Just... stories.
It is not that murky, and it isn't really a grandfather clause. It is there to make sure that the extension of the statute of limitations does not run afoul of the ex post facto clause, which invalidates extensions which apply to crimes on which the SOL has already run
So, whether his prosecution was barred by the SOL depends on what the SOL was when the crime was committed, and when the SOL was extended. Note also that the SOL can be tolled, including when the defendant is out of state.
I don't understand the reference to prior convictions; what does that have to do with the SOL? Edit: Ok I looked at the one-strike statute and looked around, and apparently the issue is not that he had prior convictions (sec 667.61(d)(1)) but rather that "The defendant has been convicted in the present case or cases of committing an offense specified in subdivision (c) against more than one victim." (sec 667.61(d)(4)). That seems to be consistent with established CA law. Eg People v. Stewart (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 163. Again, this is not meant to be a defense of the law, but merely a description.
Anyhow, if there are SOL issues, they will be raised on appeal and will be pretty easily resolved. Both the facts and law re pretty clear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link