0

I asked what exactly Weinstein did.

The answer that is given only gives the definition of 3rd degree rape. Yes. But what is it that Weinstein actually did that somehow count as 3rd degree rape?

I looked on the web and I found a source

What exactly did Harvey Weinstein do to be convicted of rape in the third degree?

The answer is deleted as not an answer. What am I missing. I am the one that write the question. Yes. That's the kind of answer I am looking for.

Perhaps someone that knows the law more can say why does that count as non consensual given that the girl can just leave instead of obeying. That would be good too.

However, the question is what exactly weinstein did.

5

On Law.SE you're the artist of your question. And the network gives askers the ability to accept answers. However, both questions and answers have to comply with the site's policies and standards.

A moderator deleted your answer for appearing to engage in argumentation that's more appropriate for the political process or that appears to impute motives to a victim that the legal process didn't. In addition, it's a poor answer because it's largely based on a single link. The site provides a number of resources for improving answers.

And because you've used the tag, I'll opine that Law.SE isn't a place for re-archiving the fact patterns of cases that are a matter of public record.

1
  • Yes it's largely based on a single link. The other question doesn't even mention that. There is hardly any argumentation there. It's just plain facts. – user4951 Sep 6 '20 at 20:33
4

In addition to what Pat W. said, your addition has no relevance to the original question, which is about specific criminal charges. In the US, a person cannot be criminally convicted for being morally sketchy – the internet is full of accusations of his moral sketchiness. He was prosecuted on the basis of very specific acts, which do not intersect with what you posted as an answer. As I pointed out, in principle we cannot know the state of mind of the jurors, and from a practical perspective it is virtually impossible to summarize the testimony at the trial. There is no discernible legal connection between the question and your answer.

1
  • That is exactly the issue. You can't be criminally convicted for being morally sketchy. He was prosecuted on the basis of very specific acts. What acts? What specific acts he is convicted? And that is the one not answered by anyone. So I latter found a link – user4951 Sep 15 '20 at 13:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .