Bill Cosby, the comedian, who was jailed as a result of being found guilty of, is a victim of 'Law', and should be freed immediately.
The law, in most countries, decrees that people thought to have broken the law with regard to 'serious crime', should go to prison.
This is where the Law makes its biggest mistake.
Before we get to that, however, we must first establish that a person is guilty of a crime. This is almost impossible to do. Even with all the currently-available technology at our disposal, we haven't a hope of proving guilt - or innocence - because the technology isn't failsafe, the photographic evidence can have been doctored, the CCTV footage likewise, the eyewitnesses mistaken or 'interfered with'. Polygraph tests are pointless. So, you see, there REALLY is no way of being able to prove either innocence or guilt, and the best anyone could ever do, is LIKELIHOODS.
The Kavanaugh case showed us how 'he said/she said' works: one person's word against the other, and, if we look at Bill Cosby's case close enough, we'll begin to see huge gaps there as well. Did Andrea Constand agree to have sex with Bill? Just how can we ever know? He said this, she said that. Brick wall.
Even if it could be established that Bill was a bit too determined to get what he wanted, how do we know what Andrea really wanted, or what she was really thinking? Sometimes, people change their minds over something, several times in a minute. Are we expected to believe that, in Cosby's case, Constand didn't have an inkling of where things were going? How do we know that she did not want sex with Cosby?
Read that again. It's a great question. One that cannot be answered.
Set Cosby free.
We might also consider how an 'assault' allegedly committed in January 2004, didn't come to be reported to police until December 2015 - a gap of nearly 12 years. What did happen, in November 2006, however, is that $3.38million passed from Bill Cosby to Andrea Constand. This further muddies the water. This payment proves nothing with regard to Cosby's guilt or innocence, but does prove that Constand was willing to take money to 'keep quiet' about what she said was a crime. Naughty, naughty.
Then, even if it were possible to 100% prove guilt, the next contentious area is the punishment. Without question, there should be punishment, but what should it be? And why do we think locking someone behind bars, and in a cell, is a punishment befitting the crime? ALL crime. Surely, aren't some crimes worse than others? But the Law says that custodial punishment for crime is standard - only the duration varies. Deprive them of their liberty.
This is a mistake.
How can we legitimately say that the punishment fits the crime?
There is no perfect solution, of course; only 'make-dos', of which custodial sentencing of an 81-year-old blind man for something we can never be sure about, seems a lot harsher than a man putting something in a lady's drink so that he could have sex with her. And remember, that's assuming she really didn't want to have sex with him, and that he did put something in her drink. Which, if you remember, I just got through telling you is impossible to prove.
Get the key. Set him free.
And whilst we're at it, let's try to bring in some sort of arrangement where - unless there are superspecial circumstances - crimes are no longer crimes if they aren't reported within an appropriate length of time.