Bill Cosby Sentenced To Up To Ten Years In Prison
After forty years, a sexual predator finally gets at least some of what he deserves.
Just under three months after he was convicted on three counts of sexual assault against a Pennsylvania woman who was merely the most recent woman to accuse him of having drugged and sexually assaulted her, Bill Cosby has been sentenced to three to ten years in state prison:
Bill Cosby was sentenced to three to 10 years in prison on Tuesday for drugging and sexually assaulting a woman at his home near here 14 years ago, completing the precipitous downfall to disgrace of a man from the heights of stardom and representing the first major conviction of the #MeToo era.
Mr. Cosby, 81, had been convicted in April of assaulting Andrea Constand, a Temple University employee at the time of the assault, who had looked upon him as a mentor but ended up being one of the dozens of women who have accused him of acts of predatory sexual abuse.
Nine of those women and Ms. Constand were in the Montgomery County Courthouse to witness the sentencing by Judge Steven T. O’Neill. Ms. Cosby’s wife, Camille, was not.
“It is time for justice, Mr. Cosby, this has all circled back to you,” Judge O’Neill said. “The day has come. The time has come.”
Acknowledging the impact that the case has had on Mr. Cosby’s legacy, Judge O’Neill added: “fallen angels suffer most.
Mr. Cosby is heading straight to prison as the judge denied him a request that he remain free on bail while he pursues an anticipated appeal. He was emotionless as he was led from the courtroom in handcuffs by four sheriff’s deputies.
Prosecutors had asked for a maximum term of five to 10 years.
When the sentence was announced, Mr. Cosby sat quietly and made no reaction. Ms. Constand stared straight ahead. The other women accusers, seated more toward the back, did not celebrate. But some later expressed their happiness.
“This is fair and just,” said Janice Dickinson, the former model who had testified at the trial that Mr. Cosby had assaulted her at a Lake Tahoe hotel room in 1982. “I am victorious.”
(…)
Judge O’Neill ruled earlier in the day that Mr. Cosby qualified as a “sexually violent predator” under Pennsylvania law.
His decision came after testimony by a psychologist for the defense, who said Mr. Cosby did not deserve that classification. The expert, Timothy Foley, said Mr. Cosby was no longer a threat to anyone and he contradicted a psychologist representing Pennsylvania’s Sexual Offenders Assessment Board who testified Monday, the first day of Mr. Cosby’s sentencing hearing. That psychologist had said Mr. Cosby had demonstrated a lifetime interest in sex with nonconsenting women, which indicated a mental abnormality.
The determination of whether a defendant is a sexually violent predator can be a factor in sentencing and in the conditions imposed both in prison and afterward.
“I found him to be extraordinarily low risk,” Dr. Foley said.
He came to his opinion, he said, after he met with Mr. Cosby for three hours on July 18 and also after reviewing some records. He said he had read none of the trial records or depositions in the case.
M. Stewart Ryan, a prosecutor, asked whether he was aware that Mr. Cosby had admitted to getting seven prescriptions of quaaludes to give to women for sex. Dr. Foley said he wasn’t.
Dr. Foley also said he didn’t know that five other women had testified at trial that they had been assaulted by Mr. Cosby.
Mr. Cosby’s lawyer, Joseph P. Green, argued Monday that Mr. Cosby’s age, 81, and the fact he is legally blind, meant he was no risk, especially since there have been no new allegations of sexual abuse leveled against him since 2004.
“How’s he going to meet these people?” Mr. Green said. “There is no reasonable prospect that an 81-year-old blind man is likely to reoffend.”
But the psychologist for the state panel, Kristen F. Dudley, said she did not believe the disorder had dissipated with age. “It is possible that he has already met someone who could be a future victim,” she said.
The final decision by Judge O’Neill upheld the board’s finding. He said the state had met “a clear and convincing standard.”
Mr. Cosby was convicted in April of drugging and assaulting Ms. Constand, a former Temple University employee to whom he had been a mentor.
Ms. Constand spoke in court on Monday, along with her mother, father and sister. Ms. Constand told the judge: “The jury heard me, Mr. Cosby heard me and now all I am asking for is justice as the court sees fit.”
But Mr. Cosby told the judge Tuesday through his lawyer that he did not intend to speak before sentencing.
Mr. Cosby has denied all the accusations against him and most experts had said they did not anticipate he would express remorse because his team has already announced plans to appeal his conviction.
He did answer a few procedural questions, and asked a question as prosecutors led him through a list of his duties now that he will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. “If I went from a city to another city do I have to, even if it’s just overnight, I have to get in touch with the state police?” Mr. Cosby said. Mr. Ryan, the prosecutor, said he should consult his lawyer.
Nine women who have accused Mr. Cosby of similar acts of sexual abuse were in the courtroom Tuesday to watch the sentencing, including three who testified at the trial in April.
But Mrs. Cosby was not there.
Originally, Cosby had been convicted of three separate charges of sexual assault for which he could have faced up to thirty years in state prison. However, prior to sentencing the prosecutors and defense had agreed to merge the three charges together for sentencing purposes, meaning that the maximum that he could face would be up to ten years. Cosby’s attorney’s of course, argued that his advanced age and declining health, among other factors, argued against a long prison sentence and asked the Judge to impose a sentence that would have resulted in him either spending a minimal amount of time in jail prior to being placed on probation or to sentence him to at-home confinement with an electronic ankle bracelet. Prosecutors on the other hand argued that the nature of Cosby’s offense, along with the long history of him having committed similar offenses over a period that went back over forty years, meant that he should face serious time in state prison as well as being labeled a ‘dangerous sexual predator,’ meaning that he would be required to register as a sex offender after being released from prison and would have to register as such in any jurisdiction he moved to or traveled to in the future. The Judge, obviously, ended up agreeing with the prosecutors and ended up lowering the hammer on the guy who used to be called “America’s Dad.”
Under the relevant sentencing guidelines, Cosby could have received minimal time but, as the article quoted above notes, the Judge found that Cosby’s history and his potential of being an offender to the future justified him being sentenced to time in prison. Prior to sentencing, though, the Judge found that Cosby met the definition of ‘dangerous sexual predator’ under Pennsylvania law. As several legal commentators observed while the court was on lunch break prior to sentencing today, this ruling seemed to virtually guarantee that Cosby would end up being sentenced to prison time and that it was unlikely he would be granted bail pending appeal.
With regard to that appeal, the biggest argument will likely be over the fact that the Judge allowed five women who had made accusations against Cosby in the past to testify regarding the circumstances of what he had done to them even though the statute of limitations for those offenses had expired some time ago. This was a significant win for the prosecution in that it allowed them to argue that Cosby had a pattern that was followed in the case of the accuser in this case. As I noted on the eve of the second trial, though, this is an exception to the general rule barring testimony regarding so-called “prior bad acts” and it carries with it some risks for the verdict on appeal:
As a general rule, courts limit the ability of the prosecution to introduce evidence of what are called “prior bad acts” due to the concern that allowing a jury to hear evidence of charges unrelated to the one before them could cause them to unfairly consider the Defendant’s guilt or innocence based on evidence unrelated to the case before them. Broadly speaking, such evidence or testimony is barred unless it falls within some very limited exceptions.
One of the exceptions, and likely the one that Judge O’Neill relied upon in making his decision, is the idea that such evidence can be admitted if it can be shown that the crime for which the Defendant stands accused is part of a pattern of previous conduct. In this case, the pattern that Cosby allegedly has consisted of enticing women to have sex with him by drugging and generally incapacitating them to the point where the “consent” that they give to him is essentially meaningless because they aren’t really conscious of their actions or even what’s happening to them. For Cosby, this is a pattern which, if the dozens of accusations against him are to be believed, stretch back to the 1960s when he was just becoming famous through his comedy albums, television appearances, and a co-starring role on I Spy. Because of that long-standing pattern, Judge O’Neill no doubt decided that additional evidence of prior bad acts of a similar nature to what Ms. Constand is alleging would be relevant to the jury.
While this is an obvious win for the prosecution, it also poses a danger for the reasons noted above. If Cosby is convicted this time, his defense will no doubt argue on appeal that admission of this additional evidence of prior bad acts was prejudicial and that it caused the jury to either ignore or dismiss some of the inconsistencies in the testimony of Ms. Constand that, under ordinary circumstances, should have been grounds for the kind of reasonable doubt that would have resulted in either acquittal or another hung jury. If they are successful in such an appeal, that would likely result in the prosecution would have to decide whether to go for a third trial against Cosby notwithstanding his advanced age and the fact that a reversal based on the inclusion of prejudicial prior bad acts testimony would lead the trial judge in such a case to be far more conservative in allowing such testimony again.
Whether or not this will lead to a reversal of the verdict remains to be seen, but until then Cosby will remain in prison unless his attorneys filea subsequent motion and somehow manage to convince the Judge to allow him to go free pending appeal, which seems unlikely.
In the end, given the nature of the offenses that Cosby was convicted of, as well as his long history of predation, this seems like a completely fair and just sentence to me. Many people may argue that his advanced age and health should have argued for a shorter sentence, but the answer to that is that he was able to live a life as a superstar that everyone in America respected for most of his life. The fact that it took so long for him to be caught and prosecuted speaks more to the injustice that his case represents than it does to any sense of sympathy for his current position. As I said shortly after he was convicted, there’s really nothing sad about what happened to Bill Cosby:
Just like practically everyone else, I was a huge fan of Cosby back in the day, but when I look at him now I don’t see tragedy and I don’t feel sorry for him. When I look at Bill Cosby now I see a sexual predator who was allowed to get away with preying on women for more than 40 years while maintaining the affable public image of a comedian and, in the 80s, “America’s Dad” in the form of Heathcliff Huxtable. Additionally, I suspect that there were plenty of people over the years who were aware that there was something going on with Cosby, but who chose to remain silent about it. In that respect, this was a situation much like what happened with Harvey Weinstein, who used his position as a Hollywood mogul to get away with decades of harassment and assault against women or Larry Nassar, who used his position of trust to take advantage of young women who were aspiring to become Olympic gymnasts, or Jerry Sandusky. In all three of those cases, there were plenty of people who were either aware of what was going on, or who should have known had they paid attention to what was going on around them. Instead, they looked the other way, and it appears that much the same thing was happening during the decades that Bill Cosby was sexually assaulting women
There’s a tragedy here, but I would suggest that it lies in what happened to these women and the fact that Cosby went unpunished for decades, not in the well-deserved downfall of a man who was, it appears, a complete phony. Bill Cosby was not America’s Dad, and he wasn’t the moral compass that he liked to pretend he was in many of his public comments. He was, and is, a sexual predator.
And now he’s a guest of the prison system of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Had Cosby committed one crime a short time ago, after a lifetime of abiding by the law, then, sure, a shorter sentence or house arrest even, would be reasonable in view of his advanced age.
As it is, he committed multiple crimes over several decades. Going easy on him now would be a reward for having gotten away with his crimes for so long.
He should die in prison.
I think this was all the justice we could expect under the circumstances. And it sends a message. A rich, beloved ‘national treasure’ gets sent up for rape? The rapey set will notice.
A serial rapist is going to get bf’ed for 10 years? And here I thought “cruel and unusual punishment” was unconstitutional. My bad.
Good. May his stay be as long as possible.
@OzarkHillbilly:
There’s always room for Jello pudding.
@Liberal Capitalist:
A wisecrack worthy of being told on the trading or steel mill floor.
@OzarkHillbilly: “A serial rapist is going to get bf’ed for 10 years? And here I thought “cruel and unusual punishment” was unconstitutional. My bad.”
He will end up either in some minimum security facility or in protective custody, because of his age and (former) status. He’ll be fine.
I know this is going to mark me as terribly out of touch, but 81 year old men don’t belong in prison.
@James Pearce: Hey, man, we’ve got prisons to fill. It’s either him or some productive member of society caught with a bag of weed.
@James Pearce:
Why doesn’t an 81 year old just-convicted criminal belong in prison? Is this a blanket rule? If an 81 year old committed homicide, he’d get house arrest instead?
@Liberal Capitalist: Too easy. But I would’ve said it if you hadn’t.
I won’t speak for James Peirce, but I do think there’s a worthwhile discussion to be had about what constitutes appropriate punishment in this (and any other conviction).
As a warden recently remarked, *one is placed in prison as punishment, not for punishment.* That’s a critical distinction that we typically get wrong here in the US.
Given Cosby’s wealth and and medical issues, I wonder if a shorter prison sentence, combined with extended house arrest and heavier financial restitution would have been a better punishment.
All that said, much like the conditions of Manafort’s bail, the real issue of such a theoretical sentence isn’t so much the conditions, but that Cosby would most likely receive that treatment because of who he is rather than because that’s the type of option that is presented to anyone in a similar position/situation.
All that said, one key factor in the sentence is most likely his utter lack of remorse.
@mattbernius:
From reading legal commentary, it may be he thinks he has a good chance to win an appeal. Therefore showing remorse now weakens his argument that he is innocent.
The whole thing is very tragic, in the Greek sense. Cosby was a talented actor, but also did a fair deal of philanthropy, and even served as a role model. But while that was going on, he was also ruining the lives of many women. That’s one thing people often don’t get about sexual assault.
In the end, Cosby gets to suffer far less than his victims. he brought it all on himself, too. I’ve no pity I can spare him at all.
@Franklin:
That’s what disturbs me. All it takes for so-called “social justice warriors” to become draconian law and order types is a conviction for rape.
@Neil Hudelson:
Because imprisoning an elderly inmate is stupid and expensive. Alternative punishments should be explored.
@Kathy:
Yes. Cosby also played the part of a moral scold within his own community. His critiques of “African American culture” were a favorite of the Right Wing Media crowd. He was often held up as a model of what a person of color should be — too bad that the actual behavior didn’t match the public image.
Agreed about the pity point. I was simply reminding the actual point of prison isn’t to impart suffering (or to try and reach some sort of pain parity between the perpetrator and the victim).
I doubt that this sentence will deter any other potential malefactors because, at least in my view, they are so far over the line between right and wrong that they cannot be reached. However, the validation that the victims get is important. The daughter of a friend went for a campus visit at a university about 100 miles away when she was a sixteen year old junior in high school. She went with another girl and arranged to stay in the dorm with the second girl’s sister. That Saturday they wound up going to a fraternity party where alcohol was dispensed. After she was quite drunk. she was hustled into a room where she got used by one of the frat boys. After this weekend, she told her mother the story on Monday. They phoned the police in the campus town and were told to make a in person complaint. They got there on Wednesday after making work arrangements. The police were dismissive and uninterested in pursuing the complaint. My friend was furious and wanted to go and shoot the young man, but his wife dissuaded him.
We need to create a better atmosphere of engagement of the authorities. This conviction of Bill Cosby will help.
@Lynn: Most likely both. Even minimum security facilities are not all that benign–plenty of creeps, thugs, and violent offenders to go around.
@Slugger:
And yet, on another set of threads on a different topic, many people have been noting that the complaints of the victims in question must be made up because they didn’t tell anyone or file criminal complaints. Kudos to your friend’s daughter and her parents, but you’ll have to forgive me if I remain unsurprised by the events in your tale.
@James Pearce: Because thinking that our drug laws are needlessly punitive should also mean that you believe the law should go easy on rapists, or else you’re a hypocrite? Is that really what you’re arguing?
Anytime I turn on the news and see Attorney Allred, one thing is for sure: money, money, money!
@Monala:
I’m arguing for keeping your principles, even when it’s hard.
I do not think it’s just to send an 81 year old man into prison for decades-old crimes. I understand a lot of supposedly principled people think it’s important to send Bill Cosby to prison for metoo# reasons, but I’m not comfortable with it.
@James Pearce: I disagree. You can have a principle that non-violent crimes (which, on the user end, drug crimes often are) should be treated much more leniently than violent crimes like rape. Or a principle that drug addiction is an illness, and so should be handled with treatment rather than any type of punishment. Those two principles can stand on their own, regardless of how someone feels about Bill Cosby.
@James Pearce
He raped dozens of women and you’re not comfortable sending him to prison because he got away with it for decades? Do you feel the same about murder? If Dahmer hadn’t been caught until today, would you be all let bygones be bygones? Those crimes were decades old, no need to punish him now, he’s old. That is a really strange ethical system.
@Monala: The principle I’m talking about is not putting octogenarians into prison. It’s unwise.
@Grewgills:
Not what I’m saying.
This is what I’m saying: “Alternative punishments should be explored.”
@James Pearce: They were–and were rejected. Your mileage varies and we get that. Now let it go.
@Just nutha: Still reading, I see…
@mattbernius:
I’m not sure there’s any clear point to prison. But I agree to your definition of what the point is not. In any case, you can’t inflict on Cosby the kind of suffering he did on his victims.
Punishment is by design within a spectrum that goes from inconvenient to unpleasant to painful, depending on the type of punishment and the person it’s inflicted on. Regardless of how prison affects Cosby, he’s getting what he deserves.
@James Pearce
Still, your point seems to be, the longer someone gets away with something horrible (in this case dozens of rapes), the more we should explore more gentle alternative sentences. So, I guess you think that since Cosby is old and was able to get away with raping women for over 40 years he should be allowed to pay for that by home arrest and just not be allowed out of his mansion and its grounds unless he has to nip out for some pudding?
If that’s not an accurate assessment of your point, what punishments are you suggesting for 40+ years of serial rape?
@Grewgills: a few thoughts: it really really sucks that Cosby was able to be a serial rapist for 40 years. But part of me too is “that’s the way it was.” Rich, famous, and powerful men got away with it.
But Cosby wasn’t on trial for 40 years of rape. He was on trial in one case. The verdict is appropriate. The sentence, however, is not.
As satisfying as it would be to lock Cosby up, it’s not right.
I dont know what it’s called when you want to lock an 81 year old man up for all the evil deeds he did, but is that justice?
@James Pearce
So, you don’t think that 3-10 years in prison is an appropriate sentence for rape? Really?
What do you think is the appropriate sentence for rape?
@Grewgills: If I were judge, jury, and executioner, I’d give Cosby a suspended sentence of 3-10 years, with at least a year of home confinement, and lifelong monitoring. Big time restitution too, no fixed dollar amount but a percentage. A large one. The formation of a trust –without the Cosby name- to administer it. Call it the Ennis Scholarship for Girls. Given to chemistry majors.
As satisfying as it would be to throw him in prison, even a cushy old man prison, it just seems unnecessarily cruel. Call me a Norwegian socialist, but I’m just kind of against making prisons the dungeon where we put all the bad people until they die. Weird, huh?
Even more cruel than what he did to those women? Hmm…
I wonder if it was unnecessarily cruel to imprison the men behind the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church…I mean, after all, they were all senior citizens when they were imprisoned…
@An Interested Party: Individuals can be cruel. Society doesn’t have to be.
Also, Clanton was 63 and Cherry was 70 when they were convicted. They weren’t spring chickens, it’s true, but they weren’t in their 80s and they were murderers.
Indeed…I was listening to one of his victims talking about him in court and she mentioned how he showed no remorse, no contrition for what he did….
Yes, I realize that some people consider rape to be a trifle compared to murder…
Tsk tsk. Shoulda stayed his jello pudding eating a$$ the hell away from those white women.
For a point of distinction on what a railroad job this was–beyond opening a criminal prosecution from a settled civil case. You have the entire fake news media conflating Bills admission that he bought quaaludes to give to women…as if he admitted that he bought quaaludes to give to UNWITTING women to engage in sex. The latter is a crime…NOT the former. Bill was asked the latter…his lawyer objected to the question so it was not answered. Several jurors cited that admission as proof of guilt. Despite the admission itself not being a crime.
People consensually use drugs as sexual enhancements all the time. Sometimes, predators use drugs to rape. It should be proven. After it is…string up by the sack. What is the burden of proof for years-old claims that someone was unaware of what they were taking…when the other someone basically claims they were aware? Oh, I get it…we need to believe women. Well… a lot black men were lynched because white women HAD to be believed. Pardon me if I don’t join into the group think on this ridiculous paradigm.
@Monala: Talk to people who have been scam victims. See how much help they get from police, or the bank.
@Tyrell: not sure the relevance?
@Jim Brown 32
How many women have to come forward before you believe the women and not Cosby?
Keep in mind, not all of them were white. Does that change your calculus?
@Grewgills: Its not about how many. ONE woman, where it is proven that she UNWITTINGLY ingested quaaludes provided by Bill Cosby is enough to warrant criminal punishment.
Men and women buy alcohol, weed, ecstasy, etc to enhance their sexual encounters. Whatever their drug of choice is you’ll find many of their previous partners that can corroborate that they provided it. That is not admission of or evidence of an assault.
Quaalude aren’t Rufies….yet the national media and the prosecution conveniently allowed the jurors and the public to believe they are the same. Are white men going to jail for using valium or ambien (qualuudes ACTUAL equivalent) as part of their sexual experience? I’m sure some scum bag has used those latter day versions to exploit women but in general, there are better drugs to use if that’s your MO…and medically speaking, both valium and ambient do a better job at what quaaludes try to do than quaaludes…including memory loss. Quaaludes are not a particularly effective tool for rapists.
None of this matters because society has decided than in the interest of punishing 100% of sexual predators…some innocent and some we can’t be certain about…must pay a price. You apparently are ok with that trade off. Most (white)people are… until it’s THEIR loved one in the Defendents chair. Most black people ain’t ok with that because they know what it means when implemented in the court system….more black folks in jail on some bulls!!t.
I don’t recall any DA prosecuting a black/non white woman’s claim against Cosby. This is America. I’m sure the burden of proof was ALL of them with the highest possible standard. The white woman got to shake Cosby down for 4 million…then come back 2o years later and getting a sealed case unsealed so she could get justice. What a Country eh?
#MeToo is about white women and for white women. It’s greatest victory? One BLACK man in jail….scores of white men with million dollar buyouts– one Supreme Court Justice
@Jim Brown 32:
@Jim Brown 32
Most of the white women didn’t get to either. Statute of limitations saved him on all but the most recent rapes. It just happens that the last few were white. It is true that if the last accuser was black it might not have gotten the same traction and that is an injustice. However, google a bit, look at the pictures of the nearly 60 women that have come forward and accused Cosby of raping them. Nearly 60 women, black, white and hispanic have said Cosby drugged and raped them. They all want him to go to jail for this because it is too late to send him to jail for what he did to them. The probable reason he was convicted is that the testimony of some of these women was allowed in to show his pattern of rape. That may be what lets this serial rapist get away with it.
BTW, the one who was first to shine a big enough spotlight on this to get it the attention it deserves was a black man.