Accusations of Bill Cosby drugging and sexually assaulting over forty women have raised legal and moral questions for me. As a student expecting to begin law school next year, I can’t help but question the facts of this case. I’m going to play “devil’s advocate,” and say things about this case that many people are afraid to say.
Fortune Network estimated that Cosby is worth an estimated $400 million. This raises suspicion as to why these women have decided to come forward now. I understand that experiencing sexual assault is difficult to report, but why is the alleged assault being reported over forty years later?
Cosby admitted to drugging the women but argued that the sexual acts were voluntarily by both parties, and I don’t think that there is enough current evidence to prove otherwise. Cosby has given over $100 million to black causes and although this does not excuse his actions, he definitely deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Following the accusations, Cosby has been stripped of various forms of sponsorship, stand-up comedy shows and reruns of The Cosby Show have been canceled. It is unfair that this has happened due to allegations that have not been proven. We can’t convict someone and make a decision on a case based on statements from victims without direct evidence. Although, this type of evidence is difficult to uncover given that the alleged sexual assaults took place over 40 years ago.
I think the Cosby case shows that society and people continue to be tainted by racism. For example, 7th Heaven’s Stephen Collins, who is white, admitted to molesting and exposing himself to children and yet the show continues to be aired. Why is it that only The Cosby Show has been canceled and his image destroyed over unproven allegations? This angers me because Cosby’s legacy and good deeds have collapsed over these allegations but Collins has not experienced the same negative judgment and backlash from society. Personally, I question why self admitted child molesters are allowed to be shown on television but shows starring individuals who are yet to be proven guilty are not allowed? I think that everyone should be equal before the law and be judged under the same rules that do not differ based on one’s race. I am in no way condoning Cosby’s actions because rape should never be tolerated in any nation. However, unless it can be proven that the sexual interactions were forced, it is wrong to assume one’s guilt without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
2 comments
It is highly unlikely that the over 50 (the article states over 40 but is wrong) women accusing Cosby of sexual assault are lying. Survivors of sexual assault often choose not to report an assault right away (or ever) due to fears of a loss of control of their situation, the scrutiny of their life choices by the public or even the fact that they believe they won’t be believed (especially in cases where the perpetrator is someone of high profile, like Cosby).
The fact that he financially supports an array of causes has no relation to the allegations and should never have been mentioned in this article as it simply has no effect on whether he is guilty or innocent.
In this article, it is mentioned specifically that ‘Cosby admitted to drugging the women.'” In this Globe and Mail article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/bill-cosby-to-be-charged-in-alleged-2004-pennsylvania-sex-assault-case/article27957032/), it states that ‘Mr. Cosby admitted in his deposition related to the civil suit that he previously gave Quaaludes to a woman “in anticipation of having sex with her.” Quaaludes are a powerful sedative that severely lessen the ability of consent to be given by the person who (unknowingly, in some cases) ingested them.
I would have no qualms about discussing how the media and society may treat a black sex offender different than a white sex offender – that’s a valid discussion. But to defend him is entirely different.
This article claims it is saying ‘what many people are afraid to say’. Yes, people should be afraid to defend someone accused of assaulting 50+ women, because it’s teaching survivors that they cannot disclose. It’s saying don’t tell the cops, they won’t believe you, don’t tell your friends and family, they won’t believe you. Defending him is like telling survivors to suffer in silence.
“Cosby admitted to drugging the women” is direct evidence that the sexual acts commited between him and these women could not be voluntary or consenting. A person cannot legally consent to a sexual act while under the influence of any sort of inhibitor, even if the substance is taken willingly, while in this case, it is proven that it was not. Therefore, when this article states “It is unfair that this has happened due to allegations that have not been proven. We can’t convict someone and make a decision on a case based on statements from victims without direct evidence,” it is a little contradictory. These allegations have been proven, and Cosby has been charged, and this article actually states the direct evidence before giving this misinformed opinion.
Just for educational purposes, I want to make sure anyone reading this is aware that sexual interactions do not have to be “forced” as stated in this article, to be considered sexual assault. Drugging someone before having sexual interactions with them is a form of sexual assault.
This is a great learning experience! I’m glad this article was written so we could have this discussion. Consent is a tricky consept to understand, if you want to have a more in-depth discussion on the blurred lines of consent follow this link to an event that’s happening next week! https://www.facebook.com/events/1603776873200206/