All the news headlines and verdict said sexual abuse, which was kind of vague, but I just found out today that the judge clarified that this was a matter of legal definition and by the verdict of the trial and the case, trump has been found guilty of penetrative rape.

  • sic_1@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why is he not in jail then? Crimes like these shouldn’t be possible to change with a fine or whatever.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because, again, he wasn’t convicted in criminal court. And again, there is a different burden of proof in civil cases (preponderance of evidence vs. “Beyond a reasonable doubt.”). There are many reasons why a case may be brought in civil court and not criminal.

      One famous example is OJ Simpson. Ruled not guilty of murder in criminal court, but lost in civil court and had to pay Ron Goldman’s family a fuck ton of money, as well as giving up any profits he may have made, or ever will make, based on the murders (that ridiculous book, etc).

      Not enough evidence to convince a jury in a criminal trial, but more than enough for civil.

      • Instigate
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Do you guys use ‘Preponderance of Evidence’ as the standard of proof for civil cases in the US? In Australia we use ‘On the Balance of Probabilities’. I wonder if there’s a technical difference there.

        (Tiny pedantic note but the Burden of Proof is about who has to produce the evidence, not the level of evidence required to make a finding - that’s the Standard of Proof)

        • Kepabar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes we go by preponderance of evidence.

          Essentially it’s ‘whoever you Believe more’ in civil cases, which is significantly lower than 'beyond a reasonable doubt ’ we use for criminal trials.

          • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            There is also the notion that is not all or nothing depending on the proof for and against a defendant. You can ask for X amount, but only get X-Y because the proof against the defendant weren’t enough to grant all the X amount.

            In criminal court, you are either guilty or not and then, if you are guilty, you can have factors that reduces or lengthen the sentence.

      • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        See also Martin Luther King Jr’s family bringing a preponderance of evidence to a civil trial alleging the FBI and CIA were behind the assassination and winning $100 and a footnote in history books.

    • Afghaniscran@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I haven’t been following this tbh since I’m not American but I did read another comment that said something about the statute of limitations so maybe criminal charges can’t be brought due to that weird part of the law where rape gets an expiry date.

      • Kepabar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Correct, the state passed a law allowing those cases where statue of limitations have been passed for criminal trails to still sue their attacker in civil court.

        It’s been suggested this was passed specifically to target Trump, but a good number of sexual assaults never go reported and I believe a few hundred cases have come from this law.

        It has since expired, it was only valid for one year.

      • Whirlybird
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        He would never have been charged criminally because of the lack of evidence. It’s quite honestly absurd that he lost this case based on the lack of evidence. I mean she literally can’t even name a year that this life changing event supposedly happened.

        I’m sure Donald Trump is a sex pest, his “grab em by the pussy” speech and various other comments all but assure that, but this case was absurd.