It’s easy to imagine that members of the #MeToo movement are extremely upset by the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that allowed Bill Cosby to walk free after serving a bit over two years of a three-to 10-year sentence. He was convicted of drugging and then sexually violating Andrea Constand, who was a sports administrator at Temple University, a school that Cosby had close ties to. The crime occurred in 2004 and it took over a decade to finally have him brought to the bar of justice.
However, the high court ruled that Cosby was convicted by using damaging deposition testimony in a lawsuit brought by Constand — who brought charges against him days before the 12-year statute of limitations ran out. The legal problem faced by the court was that Cosby was given immunity from prosecution for giving the testimony in that case by the prosecutor who was handling the matter at the time. A new prosecutor didn’t honor that hand-shake agreement and the court ruled that he should have.
Thus, Cosby is once again a free man.
While I’m a bit conflicted in regards to the court’s ruling, I’m satisfied that Cosby’s conviction — the first of a high profile, wealthy individual — got the ball rolling for the #MeToo movement. Harvey Weinstein was convicted for his misdeeds not long after and was sentenced to 23 years behind bars by a New York court. Murderers receive less time. He also is facing additional charges in Los Angeles.
However, I’m somewhat concerned by the length of sentences being handed out. Juries in future cases against other individuals might balk at sending someone to prison for what amounts to a life sentence and begin to allow some guilty individuals to go free. That’s exactly what happened in New York State when the draconian “Rockefeller Gun Laws” were put on the books in the early ’70s. Juries simply expressed their displeasure at the excessive sentences by letting individuals go free — no matter the evidence against them.
Incarcerating Cosby for the two years he’s served is, in my estimation, is just about the right period of time he should have served behind bars. Were he a younger man and thus liable to recommit his crime on another unsuspecting woman, then I would be all for keeping him locked up until he was no longer a danger to society.
One of the failings of our criminal justice system is that we lock up people that we simply are mad at, not because they pose a continuing danger to society. Our prisons are full to overflowing with octogenarians (Cosby is 83) who pose no danger of ever committing another crime if they were released. And their continued incarceration is costing us billions of dollars annually.
We could use that money to improve our faltering education system.
2 Responses to “MANSFIELD: Cosby’s Release”
Tedolph
Well then Mansfield, why not let everybody who is no longer a danger to society out of prison no matter what the crime?
Cindy Illig
Mansfield, I have empathy for the elderly in prison and for the cost we are all shouldering. I do, however, wonder how we can conclude that “octogenarians” like Cosby, are no longer a threat to society or “pose no danger of ever committing another crime if they were released.” Sure, the likelihood that Cosby would be in a position similar to those he was in the past and able to drug and assault women is slim. Perhaps your own aging (and mine) would lead us to conclude how harmless the elderly are but there are other ways older people can inflict abuse. When you consider that the motive of someone who harms others is about controlling and having power, well, the possibilities grow exponentially. We would save a lot more money by releasing people convicted of non-violent offenses, the kind where the only victim is oneself or property, instead of rapists of any age.