He wasn’t convicted of the crime of rape because he hasn’t, to date, been criminally charged with rape. He was sued civilly by E. Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation, and found by a jury liable for both acts. Which means the jury found that sufficient evidence existed that he did sexually abuse her even without a criminal conviction for rape.
The judge later clarified that the acts that the the jury found him liable for, forcible penetration of the vagina with his fingers, do constitute first degree rape under New York law. And first degree rape in New York has no statute of limitations. Were he to be tried for rape, the evidence in the civil suit would be admissible and he would almost certainly be convicted of rape. Weird that hasn’t happened, but here we are.
So technically, he is not a convicted rapist as he has yet to be criminally charged and tried for rape. But he has also been determined by a court and a jury to have absolutely sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a manner that constitutes rape under New York law. “Rapist love this one weird loophole.”
I missed something. What dna were they going to test that could influence a case for a crime that occurred 30 years ago?
E. Jean Carroll requested a DNA sample from Donald Trump in 2020 to compare with unidentified male DNA found on the dress she allegedly wore during a 1990s sexual assault.
He was found civily liable for sexual assault by a jury. It means a jury said he did it, but it’s not actually a conviction because civil suits are between private parties whereas criminal cases are between the defendant and society. They also have very different methods of punishment, as they pursue different goals.
In criminal court, the prosecutors seek punitive damages. It usually takes the form of a fine or a prison sentence. In civil court, the plaintiff (who can also be the government) seeks relief in the form of compensation for damages or an order to do something, undo something, or stop doing something. You can’t
This makes sense when you think about it. Let’s say you get pulled over for speeding. You didn’t actually cause any damage, you can’t undo having sped, and since you were pulled over you’ve already stopped speeding. So the state’s options are pretty much limited to punishment for having committed the crime. And once you’ve paid the ticket, the matter is resolved.
But what if instead of speeding, you build a building that extends beyond your property line and into a public street? Criminal statues allow for a fine, but that’s about it. Cities can even do daily fines, but rich people can just pay the fine and effectively take control of public land.
For that, you need to go through the Civil process, because in the civil system the goal isn’t justice or punishment, but relief. Instead of getting fines, the government can get an order from a judge requiring the building to be removed, and even to allow the government to bulldoze the building and bill the landowner for the expense of the demo and remediation.
This is why, unless you’re looking at a felony, you’d rather have the government take you to criminal court than civil.
Well, the usa passed a law that makes a tomato a vegetable instead of a fruit, so labels don’t mean much there (neither does law anymore), so who knows? I agree though because of the “walks like a duck” logic.
Sure, but tomatoes are a fruit botanically (more precisely, a berry). “Vegetable” is a culinary term, and has no real strict definition beyond “a plant grown to be eaten”, so a tomato falls squarely into being a berry, a fruit, and a vegetable.
As far as I’m aware, the supreme court made a ruling on that, but that’s not the same as passing a law. Are you conflating the two or do you have additional sources? Because I can’t find any evidence that was made a law.
Isn’t he a convicted rapist? Surely that means he’s in fact a rapist
Edit: thanks to all the people pointing out that he wasn’t convicted
He wasn’t convicted of the crime of rape because he hasn’t, to date, been criminally charged with rape. He was sued civilly by E. Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation, and found by a jury liable for both acts. Which means the jury found that sufficient evidence existed that he did sexually abuse her even without a criminal conviction for rape.
The judge later clarified that the acts that the the jury found him liable for, forcible penetration of the vagina with his fingers, do constitute first degree rape under New York law. And first degree rape in New York has no statute of limitations. Were he to be tried for rape, the evidence in the civil suit would be admissible and he would almost certainly be convicted of rape. Weird that hasn’t happened, but here we are.
So technically, he is not a convicted rapist as he has yet to be criminally charged and tried for rape. But he has also been determined by a court and a jury to have absolutely sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a manner that constitutes rape under New York law. “Rapist love this one weird loophole.”
He paid her 78 million dollars specifically so that he wouldn’t have to take a DNA test to prove his innocence.
Hmmmm
I missed something. What dna were they going to test that could influence a case for a crime that occurred 30 years ago?
Well there you go.
EDIT: added some googling.
He was found civily liable for sexual assault by a jury. It means a jury said he did it, but it’s not actually a conviction because civil suits are between private parties whereas criminal cases are between the defendant and society. They also have very different methods of punishment, as they pursue different goals.
In criminal court, the prosecutors seek punitive damages. It usually takes the form of a fine or a prison sentence. In civil court, the plaintiff (who can also be the government) seeks relief in the form of compensation for damages or an order to do something, undo something, or stop doing something. You can’t
This makes sense when you think about it. Let’s say you get pulled over for speeding. You didn’t actually cause any damage, you can’t undo having sped, and since you were pulled over you’ve already stopped speeding. So the state’s options are pretty much limited to punishment for having committed the crime. And once you’ve paid the ticket, the matter is resolved.
But what if instead of speeding, you build a building that extends beyond your property line and into a public street? Criminal statues allow for a fine, but that’s about it. Cities can even do daily fines, but rich people can just pay the fine and effectively take control of public land.
For that, you need to go through the Civil process, because in the civil system the goal isn’t justice or punishment, but relief. Instead of getting fines, the government can get an order from a judge requiring the building to be removed, and even to allow the government to bulldoze the building and bill the landowner for the expense of the demo and remediation.
This is why, unless you’re looking at a felony, you’d rather have the government take you to criminal court than civil.
Civil court is a much lower bar of proof. But yeah he received a civil liability judgement.
Well, the usa passed a law that makes a tomato a vegetable instead of a fruit, so labels don’t mean much there (neither does law anymore), so who knows? I agree though because of the “walks like a duck” logic.
“Vegetable” isn’t a real scientific term. Nothing is stopping a fruit from also being a vegetable
There is a definition of a fruit though, and it is understood that vegetables are not fruit. As I understand it.
Sure, but tomatoes are a fruit botanically (more precisely, a berry). “Vegetable” is a culinary term, and has no real strict definition beyond “a plant grown to be eaten”, so a tomato falls squarely into being a berry, a fruit, and a vegetable.
As far as I’m aware, the supreme court made a ruling on that, but that’s not the same as passing a law. Are you conflating the two or do you have additional sources? Because I can’t find any evidence that was made a law.
No, just something I heard or read a long time ago. If not a law, some sort of official status or recognition anyway.
Which is not remotely the same thing as passing a law.
Thanks for the confirmation!