Jump to content

Depp and Heard Trial Result


Recommended Posts

The punitive damages really shows just how poorly she has done in this trial and how terribly she has behaved.

Ive just heard her statement and it’s infuriating. She’s banging on about setting back womens rights and victims of abuse. .. but it’s her who has done that. She has not only lied about being a victim of abuse, she’s been exposed as the actual abuser. She is disgusting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally I wouldn't give a shit either way, but I think this is the first high-profile case of a man being abused by a woman in a relationship. I think the society and the court both responded to it correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

In the US it’s very difficult for public figures to win a case like this, and the fact that three statements were found to be actual malice is quite stunning. 

It is indeed extraordinarily rare, which hopefully means this trial is an outlier rather than a trend - in a lot of ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Winterfell is Burning said:

It's pretty clear that this trial should never been allowed on TV in the first place. What a fucking circus.

Yeah I don't think a court has embraced the spectacle itself like this since OJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AncalagonTheBlack said:

Even though she defamed him with malice, as the jury found? Would that be justice?

I don’t think that either has a reputation that could be lowered in the eyes of right-thinking people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I don't think a court has embraced the spectacle itself like this since OJ.

The parallels between the cases are very clear, though if that verdict will be seen as much of a miscarriage of justice remains to be seen (though of course a key difference is that this one has the possibility of appeal, which can either reinforce it or make it null and void- while I'm by no means very familiar with Virginia's courts, I wouldn't be surprised to see the amount of damages be reduced) 

 

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think that either has a reputation that could be lowered in the eyes of right-thinking people.

Right-thinking people are a increasingly rare commodity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AncalagonTheBlack said:

So if one has a bad reputation, they can be defamed in public without consequence? :huh:

That is an actual defense in a defamation case.  That the person’s reputation is so poor… they cannot be damaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No trials should be televised.

Some should. Nuremberg trials for example, or the Hague court trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree.  It turns the trial into a circus.  

There are cases in which public awareness of the presented evidence is a crucial part of justice being done.

That being said, this is not one of those cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree.  It turns the trial into a circus.  

Was the Nuremberg Trials ever really a circus? But of course, the filming was very restricted and as I understand it the allies basically all shared footage of it. The main film about the trials was the Soviet one, and it did not show any one trial in any detail. Ditto That Justice Be Done, the American propaganda film meant to inform the American public about the purpose and process of the trials:

That said, today is a very different era. You have a lot more outlets, a lot more immediate access. I feel like trials should be filmed just for the record, but that the footage should not be made available until after the trial is decided. That prevents one of the big shortfalls of televising trials, the way the the media circus can end up affecting the jury if they end up hearing about what the media makes of it and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether cameras should be allowed in proceedings is a more nuanced question (I think, for example, SCOTUS needs to get off its crotchety ass and allow C-SPAN to air oral arguments).  In this case, though, it wasn't just allowing a camera in, it was allowing multiple cameras in.  I'm surprised the court didn't appoint a hollywood director.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Was the Nuremberg Trials ever really a circus? But of course, the filming was very restricted and as I understand it the allies basically all shared footage of it. The main film about the trials was the Soviet one, and it did not show any one trial in any detail. Ditto That Justice Be Done, the American propaganda film meant to inform the American public about the purpose and process of the trials:

That said, today is a very different era. You have a lot more outlets, a lot more immediate access. I feel like trials should be filmed just for the record, but that the footage should not be made available until after the trial is decided. That prevents one of the big shortfalls of televising trials, the way the the media circus can end up affecting the jury if they end up hearing about what the media makes of it and so on.

I think the Eichmann trial is a better example. Televising it internationally was arguably the entire point of the trial, not whether a Nazi bureaucrat will get a death sentence or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...