Immunity from the herd.
I haven't written much, but now I will, about the process that saw Johnny Depp "rehabilitated" (or at least successful), and I didn't do it because I noticed some things that the journalists took care not to point out.
First of all, it is an American judicial system, that is Anglo-Saxon, which is a judicial system born when, after the collapse of the Roman Empire it was decided that the filthy customs of the barbarians should prevail. That is, it is an ordal-type judicial system.
To understand his barbarism and his absolute inability to do justice, one must understand that yes, Depp had something that resembles justice, but so many possibilities of legal barbarism have been established that the average American man will pay for it. at a very high price, or rather: one that pays a very hard price.
The first is that Depp sues his ex-wife for libel, and in response the wife cites him as libel, and THE TWO THINGS ARE DISCUSSED IN ONE TRIAL.
In any country with any semblance of legal civilization such a thing would have been impossible. There were TWO cases: Depp versus Heard, and a Heard versus Depp. Because a trial that goes on TV on a worldwide scale and goes like this is absurd: you sue me for defamation in a TV trial, and I counter you for eating alive babies after raping them. It is obvious that such a "salad" process will harm your reputation.
I know there are salad fans, but then I want to ask these fans one thing: when in the courtroom Heard, who had beaten Depp, admits a communication (of which there is a screenshot) that says "i was not punching you, i was hitting you ”, why isn't a criminal charge for assault and beatings added to the salad?
Here the salad stops, right? When Amber Heard admits that she shit in the bed where Deep was sleeping, saying it was "a joke", thus admitting things (beating her husband, humiliating him and harassing him), why doesn't the due process for domestic abuse start?
I don't know. Mysteries of Anglo-Saxon television justice.
Here we are at the most serious part, which is the judge's decision to stream the trial. I am not saying that it should not be done: but in that case the judge must avoid that a trial for defamation does not become defamatory.
A Heard who arrives in the courtroom with a photograph of an unconsumed strip of cocaine saying "this was Depp's breakfast" is defaming him, using the trial as a tool, taking advantage of the fact that the press is listening. Besides, how does this show that Heard didn't slander Depp in a newspaper accusing him of abusing him?
Ditto with the video depicting Depp drunk: how would the fact that he was drunk prove that an article in the newspaper, accusing him of domestic violence, is defamatory?
In practice, the woman used the possibility of having TV footage to continue to vilify Depp. Is this a "process"? Or is it rather a (further) chance of public lynching?
Obviously the press will never point this out, because it craves the power to DO trials rather than tell them. But seriously does this have anything to do with "justice"?
What about the popular jury? We know that at a certain point they asked the judge for an explanation, not knowing how to read (in a legal sense) the article where the woman accused the man of domestic violence.
At that point, therefore, the case was divided into a series of questions "yes", "no", whose answers, juror by juror, read during the sentence. But I'd like to ask what the hell are we talking about. Of a jury that (very honestly, it must be said in their defense), admits that it does not have the necessary legal skills.
I don't know if this thing of dividing a complex case into a series of moron questions, with the answers "yes" and "no" is the normal reaction to such a request, or if the request was then followed by a clarification. But if the jury hadn't been honest, would they have read it with the common man's judgment?
It is an ordal system, in fact, a system in which God is asked to judge: since God does not often appear in the courts, he prefers to call "the people": vox populi, vox dei.
In practice, a judicial system in which the spectators of "Amici" write the sentence.
Best wishes.
What happened to Depp obviously pleases me, because perhaps it will stop the tendency of the "metoo" to exploit defamation to hit a man who hates himself, asking the crowd to lynch him without proof and without reason, but the problem is ': but if it hadn't happened to Depp, and it was the poor American Christ who ended up on the street after being fired when his wife reported him, how would it have ended?
It would turn out that the average American man would end up in prison, because he does not have (especially after losing his job) the $ 500,000 fee to pay to a prince of the forum. What step forward are we talking about?
This trial could not have done justice, for the simple reason that such a judicial system cannot do any justice.
And not even in Italy such a thing is managed well.
Take the example of Brizzi.
Accused by the "Jene", that is from Giarrusso, of being a serial rapist. He was not even acquitted, because in fact there was no trial. The reasons:
Maybe you don't understand what is meant by “not even in the abstract”: it means that we go to a judge because “yesterday I went shopping at Aldi's, so my neighbor is a serial killer”.
It means that the judge not only can't figure out IF this happened or not, but he can't figure out where the hell it is, and how the hell it could have happened.
Now, Brizzi, even if wealthy, cannot probably afford the principles of the forum, but the manufacturer immediately broke the contract with him for not having his signature on one of his films, which he also sent to theaters by deleting his name from the posters. .
He's not Depp. In fact, the damage was kept. After all, "Le Iene" has all its equipment to deal with civil cases, and it would have been of no use. So the Depp trial to me is one of those good news you read when you have breakfast, but then you get up and go to work. Nothing will change.
Here we should open a parenthesis on "me too", in the sense that … in the sense that no one remembers it anymore. After all, if we remove the sputtanati without trial (who are therefore innocent without a shadow of a doubt), in all the sentences were…. SIX.
The method was honestly irrelevant, if it hadn't brought such a beautiful babe on TV talking about it, making an audience. Because this is what it was: it is good news that SIX rapists have been convicted, but with similar numbers it cannot be said that "many women have found the courage to report: the number of reports has increased since 2013 , but for a VERY different reason:
In the United States, at the Federal level, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) definitions are used when collating national crime statistics from states across the US. The UCR's definition of rape was changed on 1 January 2013 to remove the requirement of force against a female and to include a wider range of types of penetration. The new definition reads:
Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
For 80 years prior to the 2013 change, the UCR's definition of rape was “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will”. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States )
And you see it in the graph: from 100,000 to 140,000 every year. In short, the relevance of the method was statistically irrelevant.
To say it all, the "metoo" looks like one of those student movements of the 90s, like the Panther, or the Wave, and so on. They ended up on the pages of the newspapers, but at the most they changed the price of the Acoser canteen in Piazza Verdi for a month.
Then there were the high school girls with raised fists who occupied the high school to do as the grown-ups, see Asia Argento, who "denounced" her case without mentioning it to the American authorities, so much so that there was no trial .
In short, the "metoo" did not give "many women the courage to denounce", but rather gave many sciacquettes the quarter of an hour of fame they were looking for. I repeat: the sentences attributable to this "movement" are, in total, six.
Did the metoo stop the “casting couch” mechanism? No. And he couldn't do it, because the casting couch is a place where supply and demand meet.
Today, the casting couch has simply evolved: the young lady who wants to be part of an important film must now first bombard the cell phone of the important person with dirty photos, obscene proposals and declarations of ardent desire. When there are enough dirty photos to turn a trial into a massacre for the woman, then the man accepts an invitation. At her house. For the stated purpose of having sex. "Come to my house and I'll suck your balls off your knees too."
And here the possibility of reporting has disappeared.
As I have already said, the casting couch is a phenomenon in which supply and demand meet, that is, there is cooperation between the parties.
And it makes no sense to talk about it to bring something to life that isn't there, from Metoo to the Panther student movement.
Unless the metoo has not lowered the price of some university canteen for a month, that is.