• Daft_ish
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Semantics. Some might classify the sexual assault he preformed as rape.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it’s because the finding was made in civil court, not criminal court, therefore not convicted.

      • Daft_ish
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Huh? You can be convicted in civil court…

        • gingernate
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A conviction leads to sentencing (normally) in a criminal matter. A cival court is settling a cival matter, not a criminal one. Criminal courts convict you of a crime and sentence you to some kind of punishment. Cival courts can make you pay a fine, but not convict you of a crime.

          • Daft_ish
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Again, another argument of semantics.

            Would change nothing for me, maybe for yourself, to say Donald Trump was found liable of sexual assault by a judge and jury in the court of law.

            Edit:

            You keep obfuscating, though.

            • gingernate
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, he’s a rapist. But not a convicted rapist. That’s all that’s being said

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That would be a more accurate statement, yes.

              But there’s more to it than just semantics. There’s also the level of certainty - civil trials have a dramatically lower standard of evidence than criminal trials.

              So when you say he’s been convicted of rape, you’re saying that 12 people were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed rape. But that’s not the case - instead a judge was convinced it was at least slightly more likely than not that he committed rape. That’s a very different standard.