• Cruxifux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Nope, just of sexual abuse. Which is, like…. Come on New York what’s the fucking difference here? Especially when you hear the story of what happened. I don’t understand how they talked the court down from rape to sexual abuse.

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          My understanding is that she wasn’t able to say with 100% certainty that he put his penis inside her; that it could have been his finger.

          Which I’m sure is something his lawyers push but is still a pretty sick burn to have on-record, and actually lines up with what his other victims say.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, it’s because the finding was made in civil court, not criminal court, therefore not convicted.

          • gingernate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            A conviction leads to sentencing (normally) in a criminal matter. A cival court is settling a cival matter, not a criminal one. Criminal courts convict you of a crime and sentence you to some kind of punishment. Cival courts can make you pay a fine, but not convict you of a crime.

            • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Again, another argument of semantics.

              Would change nothing for me, maybe for yourself, to say Donald Trump was found liable of sexual assault by a judge and jury in the court of law.

              Edit:

              You keep obfuscating, though.

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                That would be a more accurate statement, yes.

                But there’s more to it than just semantics. There’s also the level of certainty - civil trials have a dramatically lower standard of evidence than criminal trials.

                So when you say he’s been convicted of rape, you’re saying that 12 people were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed rape. But that’s not the case - instead a judge was convinced it was at least slightly more likely than not that he committed rape. That’s a very different standard.