The Criterion Collection

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Reddington

With the deepest respect, until such time that charges are filed, and accusations proven, why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt? As you might a relative or close friend.

Most cases don't go to trial (for many reasons), and it is incredibly hard to prove after the fact. How do you prove that Spacey groped your genitals, for example?

There's certainly such a thing as reasonable doubt, but, Spacey has many credible accusers, including some that filed police reports.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Reddington

My point is that the legal system is all we have - for better or worse. Allen has a right to the presumption of innocence. And yet many say otherwise, which is a dangerous precedent.

In the UK recently, renowned singer and entertainer Sir Cliff Richard was cleared of all accusations of sexual misconduct (made as it turned out by a known liar and fantasist). But as he said, there will always be people out there who think he "must" have done something wrong, otherwise the accusation would never have been made in the first place.

We are at the point where an accusation is all the proof many people need, which is very troubling.

O.J. Simpson was found innocent of murder in the criminal trial, so people need to stop saying he did it. The court found him innocent and the courts are infalliable.

[812crew]

It's an interesting chat everyone (and one that I do think applies to Criterion and the movies they occasionally release). Thanks to everyone for being respectful these past few hours, not getting too heated or calling people names as can happen on many other forums or social media. It's a good group here and I'm happy to be a part of it.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Most cases don't go to trial (for many reasons), and it is incredibly hard to prove after the fact. How do you prove that Spacey groped your genitals, for example?

There's certainly such a thing as reasonable doubt, but, Spacey has many credible accusers, including some that filed police reports.

If such acts can't be proven legally, then are we not now at the point I said? That accusation = proof. Seems to me that some of the worst regimes the world has ever seen have based their "legal" system on such a concept.

Look, I'm not defending Spacey, Allen, or anyone else. I just find it troubling that the court of public opinion is seen by some as having more credibility than the actual courts.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

O.J. Simpson was found innocent of murder in the criminal trial, so people need to stop saying he did it. The court found him innocent and the courts are infalliable.

Yes and no. A criminal trial found him innocent. A civil trial, which has a lesser burden of proof, found he was responsible for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

I do get the point you're making. Ultimately, a criminal trial comes down to the jury, and, for whatever reason(s), a jury of our peers can still get it wrong, no matter how rigorous voir dire may have been in "weeding out" potential jurors. An attorney, in challenging jurors with preconceptions, or biases, can only do so much.

It's not a perfect system, but I still firmly believe it's the best system there is.

[Rui]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

O.J. Simpson was found innocent of murder in the criminal trial, so people need to stop saying he did it. The court found him innocent and the courts are infalliable.

courts aren't infallible, but they are the most through process we have at arriving at a reasonable judgment.

they are surely better than anonymous accusations peddled by a dying media that now relies on clicks and outrage for their income...

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by Reddington

If such acts can't be proven legally, then are we not now at the point I said? That accusation = proof. Seems to me that some of the worst regimes the world has ever seen have based their "legal" system on such a concept.

Look, I'm not defending Spacey, Allen, or anyone else. I just find it troubling that the court of public opinion is seen by some as having more credibility than the actual courts.

I think this is symptomatic of our society now, in general. America is a fast food nation in more ways than one. We don't want to wait for anything. We want it now, whether it's our dinner, a web page on our smart phones, or our justice that's being doled out. If we have to wait, we're prone to irascibility. If we have to wait for the guy in front of us in traffic to move when the light hits green, we want to step on the gas, drive up along side them, and flip them off.

The court of public opinion renders its verdict with haste, and its opinion is satisfying, regardless of whether or not it's accurate. But who cares? If the headline on page one is later deemed in error, the paper can always just print a retraction on page 12.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Reddington

If such acts can't be proven legally, then are we not now at the point I said? That accusation = proof. Seems to me that some of the worst regimes the world has ever seen have based their "legal" system on such a concept.

Look, I'm not defending Spacey, Allen, or anyone else. I just find it troubling that the court of public opinion is seen by some as having more credibility than the actual courts.

So what your saying is everything unprovable should just be ignored and basically is legal?

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term that has no bearing outside of courts. Double digit accusations, including several police reports filed years ago make this a instance a very credible accusation.

You're either giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused or the victims, and it seems like a pretty easy choice in this instance.

[Rui]

as 'Rashomon' showed us it's entirely possible that different people experience the same incident vastly different because we all filter reality through our subjective lens.

Meaning it's very possible that Mike Tyson truly believes he never raped anyone, while his accuser may truly believe she was raped by him.

Outside of omnipotent power (which no one has) we are left with a (albeit imperfect) judicial system to point us to a reasonable judgment. A system that is the byproduct of centuries of tweaking and refining our common law. The central axiom of this process is "innocent until proven guilty". It's unfortunate so many are eager to throw away this pillar of the civilized world.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Rui

as 'Rashomon' showed us it's entirely possible that different people experience the same incident vastly different because we all filter reality through our subjective lens.

Meaning it's very possible that Mike Tyson truly believes he never raped anyone, while his accuser may truly believe she was raped by him.

Outside of omnipotent power (which no one has) we are left with a (albeit imperfect) judicial system to point us to a reasonable judgment. A system that is the byproduct of centuries of tweaking and refining our common law. The central axiom of this process is "innocent until proven guilty". It's unfortunate so many are eager to throw away this pillar of the civilized world.

Believing you're innocent doesn't actually make you innocent.

"innocent until proven guilty," again, only applies in a court of law and is pretty useless in incidents such as these where it is virtually impossible to prove your case if you can even get it as far as a court of law.

[Rui]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Believing you're innocent doesn't actually make you innocent.

I agree. By the same token believing someone is guilty doesn't mean they are actually guilty.

We should all be a little more humble and not pretend to *know* what the "truth" actually is. No one is omniscient.

All we have is evidence which may point us to the "truth". Some of that evidence may be incredibly illuminating (like video) while other evidence is much less trustworthy (like eyewitness testimony). It's an imperfect process, but it's the best we have.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

"innocent until proven guilty," again, only applies in a court of law and is pretty useless in incidents such as these where it is virtually impossible to prove your case if you can even get it as far as a court of law.

That doesn't justify the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset, either.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

That doesn't justify the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset, either.

I don't think everyone is automatically guilty - I think you need to look at each individual case.

In THIS case, it would require a conspiracy over many years to set up for something that is unlikely to have any return.

There's no logical reason for multiple people to have made false police reports over the years and not have come forward if they were attempting to scam him.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by Rui

Outside of omnipotent power (which no one has) we are left with a (albeit imperfect) judicial system to point us to a reasonable judgment. A system that is the byproduct of centuries of tweaking and refining our common law. The central axiom of this process is "innocent until proven guilty". It's unfortunate so many are eager to throw away this pillar of the civilized world.

It's lamentable that due process has been thrown by the wayside in favor of expediency in the court of public opinion.

"That guy on death row is getting yet another reprieve. He's appeared before the appellate court three times now. Now, the Governor has granted a stay. Enough is enough. Stick the needle(s) in his arm, and be done with it. He's costing taxpayers an arm and a leg."

That's mob mentality. And, it is precisely this kind of rationale that the court's appeals process aims to protect against. Even criminals have rights under the law. Our system of justice, while the best going, imho, is not infallible.

I live in Texas, a state where politicians celebrate the number of death row inmates stuck in the ground like it's political capital. Yet, there is a parallel, of sorts, between capital cases where the defendant is sentenced to death, and the court of public opinion. Once you throw the switch, or stick the needle in, there's no coming back. And once a person's reputation is ruined, there's no such thing as complete rehabilitation of that reputation. Even people on death row, who have had their convictions vacated often continue to suffer the stigma of their crimes.

[KubrickKurasawa]

A Box set Ingmar Bergmen, 1 Kenji Mizoguchi, and 1 Andrei Tarkovsky coming soon.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

"innocent until proven guilty," again, only applies in a court of law and is pretty useless in incidents such as these where it is virtually impossible to prove your case if you can even get it as far as a court of law.

Yes, the presumption of innocence is a legal construct (and an international human right according to a UN charter), but surely you are not saying that because of the legal hurdles involved in bringing abuse cases to court, the presumption of guilt should apply?

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Reddington

Yes, the presumption of innocence is a legal construct (and an international human right according to a UN charter), but surely you are not saying that because of the legal hurdles involved in bringing abuse cases to court, the presumption of guilt should apply?

No, I've addressed this multiple times already. Credible accusations should be taken seriously though.

Innocent unless someone gets convicted in a court of law, no matter the strength and numbers of the accusers, supports abusers.

OK, we're circling around the same points over and over again.

All of this is born out of a comment that American Beauty is a hard sell right now. That seems like a very reasonable position no matter if you believe he's innocent or not.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

A Box set Ingmar Bergmen, 1 Kenji Mizoguchi, and 1 Andrei Tarkovsky coming soon.

Nice selections! But you might want to re-post this in a more appropriate forum, for instance one that perhaps focuses on, and discusses, film releases...

[Caseyscott]

The reason the “court of public opinion” exists more prominently in cases of sexual abuse, in addition to reasons mentioned above, is the victims of these crimes suffer devastating repercussions and remain unsupported. Millions of lives are destroyed and because it is so difficult to get justice, the vacuum of the silent legal system is replaced with the citizens who have no other recourse but to speak for the victims. These are not trivial trespasses, these actions taken against the victims often do irreparable harm. It is an imperfect response born of desperation, and the victims and their loved ones endure suffering while the perpetrators walk free. Human psyche is fragile and cannot always endure indefinitely engaged in perfection. There are a few “boys crying wolf” as there always are where attention can be gained, and that can be equally traumatic. The falsely accused in all reputable studies pale in comparison to the millions of abuse victims who suffer in silence. If I had a solution to these problems I wouldn’t be wasting time on these boards, but let’s not pretend correlated casualties are the fault of millions of unheard victims with no resources for their trauma.

[Reddington]

Just catching up on some Beaver reviews and am intrigued by the recently released Memories of Underdevelopment. I don't know anything about Cuban cinema, and this film in particular, but it looks interesting - especially the B&W cinematography (visually, I get a bit of an Antonioni/Costa-Gavras vibe).

Is this a solid blind-buy?

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-r...nt_blu-ray.htm