Thoughts on trying people for historical crimes?

Politics & Current Affairs
1

Particularly when society viewed the actions as normal back then.

The Russell Brand case is all over the news front pages lately. I am not fan of his at all. I think he is a vacuous creature, similar in ilk to Jordan Peterson but many of the accusations seem more akin to the booze shagging culture that was the norm in Britain at the time and even applauded by local newspapers awarding him ‘shagger or the year’.

Yes, there do sound like some legitimate charges there from what has been said of the trial so far as there are quite a few different allegations, ranging in severity. I am not disputing those more clear cut ones but some just sound like consensual sex and then the woman later decides she felt used and so now claiming it wasn’t consensual.

Is any buyer’s remorse on the woman’s side now going to be called r*pe? due to the changing landscape aka #metoo?

It doesn’t affect me as I have effectively taken myself out of society and certainly the mating game for the foreseeable future, so I no longer have a horse in this race but it seems questionable that society will now point a judgemental finger back in time and apply today’s standards to yesterday’s mores.

Imagine if we did that that people in retirement homes. I am sure lots of those little old men probably hit women as it was still quietly accepted behind closed doors up until the end of the 50s I think.

Even the rock and roll all time hall of famer John Lennon I saw on some documentary an interview with one of his early girlfriends, before the major fame, where she said she broke up with him because he used to hit her.

Should those old little fellas be tried for those crimes of the past?

Of course the legal system doesn’t have the resources to try everyone for such things so seems more of an issue about someone doing these things when they are famous to make an example of them.

Oh and of course larger historical episodes would be Nazism and slavery as two obvious examples that should be explored, or at least mentioned in this context. I am sure you can think of others, but those two spring to mind.

I suppose the question can be refined to when is and isn’t it appropriate to try people for actions of the past?

Well not only that but why are some cases picked up and others not? Fame seems to be the main factor? or are there similar such historical crimes which we don’t know about simply because the person isn’t famous?

2

I take the general point that standards change

But the allegations against Brand are between 1999 to 2009 and not the1950s or 1970s. This is long after it was established in popular consciousness that No means No.

1 Like
3

Synodus Horrenda. Pope Formosus (dead for 9 months) was exhumed and put on trial by Pope Stephen VI. It’s said that a young boy was sat next to Formosus’ cadaver and instructed to moan, groan and make other kinds of disrespectful sounds on Formosus’ behalf as accusations were leveled and the judgment pronounced.

4

Incidentally, a couple of friends of mine were predicting Brand’s fate back then. His horrendous dick-led aesthetics looked like a time limited routine with potential consequences. But who knows how this will play out, a slap on the wrist or some time in jail? I think his latest persona as a right- wing Christian conspiracy theorist is just as ghastly.

5

I think you are being spurious here.

I think it is clear I was not expecting Brand to be tried by the standards of pre war society. I merely drew a corollary.

Also I am not sure that ‘no means no’ only become a thing in the 1950s? R*pe has existed as a crime for quite a bit longer that that methinks. The example I was making was punching women which was more accepted; same with children.

Back to the OP, I think the question is should the individual be culpable for society’s ills? he was being rewarded for that behavior and so society enabled it.

It is like blaming homeless people for being homeless.

Society itself should take responsibility for that milieu. It is the usual political scapegoat trick I think where someone takes the fall for the actions of the many. You see that all the time in parliament, or its different arms, such as the police. It is like how the police kept getting the flack that was caused due to all the government cuts to policing.

I don’t think they have to be particularly prescient to come to that conclusion. :slight_smile: Probably most people would think that if they watched him a little but I did my best to avoid him through the years. It is only because he is front page news that I see him now.

Isn’t it a law of averages if that is the right term? The more people you sleep with the larger chance some will take issue at some point? I am surprised it doesn’t happen more often with rock stars and their antics or maybe it does? but doesn’t get as much attention? you would have thought so with rockstars being equally as promiscuous and also famous and newsworthy yet you don’t hear of it too often given how many rock stars there are.

Rock stars are passe now anyway, that is more 80s. I suppose the equivalent is rap stars as the modern day version and you do hear about their legal issues R, Kelly, Tupac had an R charge, also Mike Tyson. So maybe it is just par for the course with fame and promiscuity?

Just an occupational hazard eh?

Actually now I think of it while fame might shine a light on it that isn’t a necessary ingredient. I had an acquaintance when I used to go out clubbing a lot; not a friend as he was shady, and prided himself as a ‘full time player’ and I recall him saying to me on more than one occasion problems related to his lifestyle; one time saying ‘it’s really bad’ which I could guess what it meant and he didn’t want to divulge more.

He was not out on the scene for like 6 months whereas I would usually have seen him almost every time I went out so knew it must have been bad to curtail his usual habit. He then just suddenly started showing up again like nothing had happened and if I lightly queried what happened to allow him more freedoms again he would not want to discuss it.

He would take a new girl home usually several times a week when he said he was ‘on’ and would love to show off about it to me, to my chagrin. These type of people will just talk at you with no regard to whether you want to hear it. So just a numbers thing that a problem would occur over those kind of numbers I guess.

Similar to the live fast die young philosophy where some health issues will be expected living a hard and fast life.

I would think the occupational hazard aspect has always been stable throughout the years but going back the the OP, what is different now is that society is particularly sensitive to male debauchery currently due to the rise of 3rd wave feminism and woke culture in the last decade or so.

So such things are seen as all the more reprehensible in this current welteenshaung. On the other hand there is now a push back of ‘manosphere’ gaining a lot of traction so I think things may even out again in the following years.

Or global war might break out or AI apocalypse making all these things inconsequential or void entirely.

6

Sure. And stand-up comics were the new rock stars for quite some time. I think what was different was Brand saying things on air like, “I’d like to fuck you, pretty lady.” I think where Brand was different was in his ostentatious drawing of attention to his slightly coercive, priapic behaviour. Had he been less vulgar about it, he might have stayed under the radar. But who knows?

7

Of course who can say and it is only speculation and also a lot of chance involved but look at Weinstein. From those audio tapes and accounts he was just as vulgur and also lacked the charm that Brand had and yet he carried on for decades and his case is what kicked off the metoo movement I think isn’t it?

It seemed to be an open secret in Hollywood in that case where everyone knew what he was like but didn’t do anything because they had vested interests in keeping quiet to maintain/further their careers and whatnot.

In Brand’s case I can see how he would initially charm them and then they might feel used and abused due to him ‘turning’ or such but in the Weinsten case he just seems gross on all accounts and it is only his status that allowed him any access, and more of a transactional thing on the women’s part.