Some news that would be completely mundane today but scary or shocking in the past.

    • MudMan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not an expert on the nuance of the US legal system, but “convicted” probably applies to the criminal system, right? What would it be in this scenario? A confirmed rapist? Just “a rapist”?

      Still, the guy raped some lady and he’s actively running for president. That one would be shocking any time before the mid 2010s, honestly.

      • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have family in the US (who are not trumpets afaik) and they wouldn’t know that he actually got proven guilty for doing it. They‘d probably assume he made a deal.

        • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t it a civil trial tho and not a criminal trial? Meaning that the bar for evidence is just “more than likely” and not “beyond a reasonable doubt” right? I mean it’s still very damning but he has not (yet) been found guilty of the crime, just liable.

          • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is an important distinction of being “convicted” and “proven guilty” though. You can get off a conviction through multiple means, one being a mistrial and so on. I think there is no two ways about this after reading:

            A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.