• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

theprestige said:
Warehouses criminals. "Warehouses prisoners" is kind of redundant. It's not like prison should be a revolving door. The whole point is to house them for some extended period of time.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that some think prison is for more than just locking people up for the term of their sentence.
 
Arcade22 said:
The issue is not one solely of privacy. You also have to factor in any negative effects on their wellbeing. Depending on what "suicide prevention" actually entails it can be detrimental to their mental health and wellbeing, for example by severely interfering with their ability to sleep.

In China, one part of the coercion and torture method inflicted upon individuals in order to produce confessions of any supposed crimes they are supposed to have committed, is pretty much indistinguishable from "suicide prevention" in that they subject to constant close supervision. No matter what, there's always someone glaring at them.
Click to expand...


The issue is not one of whether or not it is possible for treatment alleged to be suicide prevention can be cruel and unusual punishment used for punitive and/or coercive purposes. I don't think anyone participating in this conversation believes it cannot be.

It is whether or not Epstein had been subjected to such treatment to the degree that his lawyers could present valid objections to them in a court of law ...

or if they were reasonable and prudent measures taken for the purpose of preventing harm to him by himself or others.

There is a difference, you know.

ETA: According to wiki, this was the sort of suicide watch Epstein endured;

As a result of the incident, Epstein was placed on suicide watch.[22] He was placed in an observation cell, surrounded by windows, where lights were left on and any devices that he could be use to take his own life were not permitted.[23] Psychological staff dismissed Epstein from suicide watch after six days following a psychiatric examination.​

I'm not sure how much less could have been done and have it still qualify as a "suicide watch". It seems like a bare minimum to me.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
If he's guilty, then this is a bluff, hoping the videos don't exist. If he's innocent, it's him trying to support his innocence in the face of the problem that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's hard to prove you did nothing wrong even when you in fact did nothing wrong.

So one question is: does Dershowitz think it's more likely or less likely that Epstein video taped all this stuff and kept it? If he thinks the videos probably exist, then he's unlikely to make this bluff, so that suggests innocence. If he thinks the video likely doesn't exist, then saying this is low risk whether he's innocent or guilty, so we can't really draw any conclusions.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not much of a bluff, because he's essentially betting nothing. If the videos exist and he's in them, he's royally screwed regardless. If they don't exist, he just seemingly made a case for his innocence. Tails I win, heads I don't lose.
 
timhau said:
Actually, it's not much of a bluff, because he's essentially betting nothing. If the videos exist and he's in them, he's royally screwed regardless.
Click to expand...

That may depend. Age of consent in New York is 17. If he's on tape banging a 17 year old, that's embarrassing but not criminal. A tape of that made without his permission probably can't be released legally, but he just gave permission. But yeah, if he's on tape with someone under the age of consent, then it probably makes no difference.

Of course, that's a mighty big if. Epstein is the sort of guy who built social credit by hobknobbing with anyone and everyone of importance he could get near. I'm sure he tried to get kompromat on everyone he could, but there's no way he actually got kompromat on everyone he socialized with. That would have been too restrictive, and would have limited the size of the network he could build. So the fact that Epstein hung out with Dershowitz doesn't suffice to indicate that Dershowitz actually engaged in any misconduct, and we're essentially no closer to knowing whether or not he did.
 
Ziggurat said:
That may depend. Age of consent in New York is 17. If he's on tape banging a 17 year old, that's embarrassing but not criminal. A tape of that made without his permission probably can't be released legally, but he just gave permission. But yeah, if he's on tape with someone under the age of consent, then it probably makes no difference.
Click to expand...

If he's on tape with a 17-year-old, it won't stay secret for long, and it’s just as embarrassing whether it becomes public knowledge with or without his approval. It was a good PR move though, because it sound like he's laying something on the line even when he isn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
.....
So the fact that Epstein hung out with Dershowitz doesn't suffice to indicate that Dershowitz actually engaged in any misconduct, and we're essentially no closer to knowing whether or not he did.
Click to expand...

Whether Dershowitz did anything actionable is an open question. But it's still reasonable to ask whether he -- and Epstein's other celebrity pals -- knew what Epstein was doing. He was, after all, a convicted sex offender, and it's hard to believe that everybody thought all the teenage girls around him were babysitters or housekeepers.
 
theprestige said:
Warehouses criminals. "Warehouses prisoners" is kind of redundant. It's not like prison should be a revolving door. The whole point is to house them for some extended period of time.
Click to expand...

This was a jail. So they are not convicted criminals yet (Well, Epstein was for a previous conviction but whatever).
 
Ziggurat said:
That may depend. Age of consent in New York is 17. If he's on tape banging a 17 year old, that's embarrassing but not criminal. A tape of that made without his permission probably can't be released legally, but he just gave permission. But yeah, if he's on tape with someone under the age of consent, then it probably makes no difference.

Of course, that's a mighty big if. Epstein is the sort of guy who built social credit by hobknobbing with anyone and everyone of importance he could get near. I'm sure he tried to get kompromat on everyone he could, but there's no way he actually got kompromat on everyone he socialized with. That would have been too restrictive, and would have limited the size of the network he could build. So the fact that Epstein hung out with Dershowitz doesn't suffice to indicate that Dershowitz actually engaged in any misconduct, and we're essentially no closer to knowing whether or not he did.
Click to expand...

If we are talking about trafficked women it goes beyond embarrassing. Of course Dershowitz could claim not to have known but video of him would definitely be pretty bad I would think.

I guess this all refers to the CDs that were found with men’s names.
 
Bob001 said:
Whether Dershowitz did anything actionable is an open question. But it's still reasonable to ask whether he -- and Epstein's other celebrity pals -- knew what Epstein was doing. He was, after all, a convicted sex offender, and it's hard to believe that everybody thought all the teenage girls around him were babysitters or housekeepers.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that question has been in the air for quite some time, nothing about it has changed right now.

I actually suspect that a lot of them didn't know. They may not have wanted to know either, it may have been easier to just not even think about it. But that's how you build up social credibility: you hang out with as many people as you can, and that provides a network effect. And that's easier to accomplish if most of them remain in the dark.
 
Robin said:
I daresay his 2005 conviction for child sex offenses might have been a bit of a hint.
Click to expand...

Sure. But they probably convinced themselves that he stopped. After all, why else would he have been readmitted to polite society? And thus they admit him to polite society too. That’s how social credibility works. And nobody points out the emperor has no clothes.
 
Ziggurat said:
That may depend. Age of consent in New York is 17. If he's on tape banging a 17 year old, that's embarrassing but not criminal. A tape of that made without his permission probably can't be released legally, but he just gave permission. But yeah, if he's on tape with someone under the age of consent, then it probably makes no difference.

Of course, that's a mighty big if. Epstein is the sort of guy who built social credit by hobknobbing with anyone and everyone of importance he could get near. I'm sure he tried to get kompromat on everyone he could, but there's no way he actually got kompromat on everyone he socialized with. That would have been too restrictive, and would have limited the size of the network he could build. So the fact that Epstein hung out with Dershowitz doesn't suffice to indicate that Dershowitz actually engaged in any misconduct, and we're essentially no closer to knowing whether or not he did.
Click to expand...

Surely the criminal offence is sex trafficking? If he knew the woman concerned was sex trafficked across state lines he can't argue innocence, especially if he travelled to New Mexico or Little St James to participate.

New York only? Being a defence lawyer, he could argue that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom