2019年5月31日 星期五

TIME: New Sex-Assault Charges Could Lead to Stricter Penalty, Jail Time for R Kelly if Convicted

TIME
Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates 
thumbnailNew Sex-Assault Charges Could Lead to Stricter Penalty, Jail Time for R Kelly if Convicted
May 31st 2019, 22:16, by DON BABWIN / AP

(CHICAGO) — Prosecutors aren’t saying much about why they charged R. Kelly with 11 new sex-related felony counts but one thing is clear: Things are much more serious for the Grammy-winning R&B singer.

The reasons start with the fact that the 11 new counts include four counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault — a Class X felony that carries a sentence up to 30 years — more than four times as long as the sentence that each of the 10 counts Kelly was charged with and pleaded not guilty to in February.

“By doing this they have enhanced the penalty if he’s convicted,” Joe Lopez, a Chicago defense attorney, said Friday. And perhaps more significantly, he said that even with the original 10 counts of aggravated sexual abuse that Kelly was charged with in February there was a possibility that he could have been placed on probation and avoided prison.

But, Lopez said, if Kelly is convicted of any one of the four counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, he must go to prison.

Of more immediate concern to Kelly might be what happens when he returns to court next Thursday to hear the new charges.

“I would not be surprised at all if prosecutors come to court and ask the judge to increase the bail amount,” said Dick Devine, a private attorney who was the Cook County State’s Attorney for a dozen years until 2008. Any substantial increase could send Kelly back to jail. Kelly, whose financial problems have been widely reported, spent a few days behind bars when he was originally charged in February until a suburban woman posted the 10% of $1 million bond — $100,000 — to secure his release.

But various legal experts say there is not much chance of prosecutors asking for such an increase or a judge granting that request if they do.

Kelly’s attorney, Steve Greenberg, said he is optimistic that the bail mount won’t be increased.

“He’s not a flight risk and (while) they may have changed the charges it doesn’t change the fact that he’s not a flight risk and we expect bail to remain the same,” Greenberg said of Kelly.

In the long term, one former federal prosecutor suggested that the new charges are likely part of a legal strategy to increase the chances of a conviction.

“What happens is they charged the same thing in different ways because they obviously want to have the greatest chance at conviction and maybe they looked at the indictment and saw (Kelly’s attorneys) might have a defense and they wanted to seal off that defense,” said Phil Turner, who is now a Chicago defense attorney.

According to the new court filing, the first eight counts are from encounters that allegedly occurred between Jan. 1 and Jan. 31, 2010. Three others pertain to alleged encounters between May 1, 2009, and Jan. 31, 2010.

Among other things, prosecutors allege that Kelly used force or threatened to do so to pressure the accuser into sex or to perform oral sex on him. She was underage at the time, extending the statute of limitations for bringing charges to 20 years from her 18th birthday, they wrote.

Since the new charges were announced, a woman has come forward to say publicly that 11 new sex-related felony counts against R. Kelly stem from allegations she made about the R&B singer.

Jerhonda Pace writes on her Facebook page that she’s the alleged victim prosecutors identify as “J.P.” in court papers. Anticipating an angry reaction by Kelly’s fans, Pace — one of four women Kelly is charged with sexually abusing — wrote that “no matter how “wrong” you think I am, the law is on my side, a MINOR at the time.”

The Associated Press doesn’t usually name alleged victims of sexual assault, but Pace has gone public with her allegations.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. By using Blogtrottr, you agree to our policies, terms and conditions.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions.

TIME: Even People Who Were There Still Don’t Agree on How Stonewall Started. Here’s What We Do Know

TIME
Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates 
thumbnailEven People Who Were There Still Don't Agree on How Stonewall Started. Here's What We Do Know
May 31st 2019, 22:17, by Olivia B. Waxman and Joey Lautrup

A lot has changed for LGBTQ Americans in the 50 years since June 28, 1969, when an uprising in response to a police raid at the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Manhattan’s West Village neighborhood, kicked off a new chapter of grassroots activism. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down state bans on same-sex marriage; the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has come and gone; one of the candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is gay.

But one thing that has changed surprisingly little is the narrative about what exactly happened that night. In half a century, we haven’t gained any new major information about how Stonewall started, and even experts and eyewitnesses remain unsure how exactly things turned violent.

“We have, since 1969, been trading the same few tales about the riots from the same few accounts — trading them for so long that they have transmogrified into simplistic myth,” Martin Duberman writes in the new preface for the 2019 re-release of his 1994 book Stonewall, widely considered to be the definitive account of Stonewall and the events that followed.

“In terms of what happened that night, it really depends on who you talk to, and that includes the people who were actually there,” Duberman, now 88, told TIME on a recent visit to his Manhattan apartment. “They often have very different takes on what went down.”

In 1969, police raids at Stonewall were common, says Duberman, who was not there on the night of the raid but was closely involved in the organizing that followed. Officers would throw people against the wall and make sure they were wearing three pieces of clothing that were appropriate to their biological sex, per New York State law at the time. But nobody really knows why the police showed up that specific date, not long after midnight in the wee hours of Saturday morning on June 28; one theory, Duberman says, is that the bar owners failed to pay off the police. “It’s one of those apparent accidents of history,” says Duberman.

It’s also unclear how exactly that particular police raid turned violent, or why that was the night when, rather than being cowed, the patrons responded with resistance.

Some eyewitnesses to whom Duberman has spoken say that “a lesbian actually began the rioting by striking out at a policeman who was mauling her,” he says, but no such woman has ever come forward to say that was her. Some say the incident may have turned violent when a trans person hit a policeman, and some think that one of those people, at least, was Tammy Novak, who fought back when a policeman tried to push her into a police van, according to an account Duberman heard from Sylvia Rivera, a pioneering transgender activist whom the city announced on May 29 will be honored with a monument near the Stonewall Inn.

Part of the reason for the confusion is that there are very few photographs of the uprising in progress, even though the nearby Village Voice extensively covered the five nights of riots that followed. Craig Rodwell, owner of a bookstore that specialized in books about gay and lesbian culture, was taking pictures but they didn’t come out. The news photos that often accompany stories about Stonewall may not even come from the day of the uprising.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

Despite the lack of clarity on how the Stonewall riots started, there is a deeper answer to why the uprising happened — and that side of the story is quite clear.

At the time of Stonewall, in 1969, many different counter-cultural movements were underway already.

“I think you need to know the whole context of the 1960s, and just how much rebellion was going on throughout the culture,” says Duberman. “The birth of the feminist movement, the black struggle for Civil Rights, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination — it was an extremely volatile decade. We began to think, well, black people have been long defined as inferior. But now they’re saying black is beautiful. We, gay people, have long been defined as inferior. Maybe it’s time we started to say, ‘Gay is beautiful.'”

Within weeks after Stonewall, LGBTQ people who had been active in other movements, or in the typically quieter forms of LGBTQ activism that predated Stonewall by decades, came together to start “a whole new gay movement” in the U.S., as Duberman puts it. This was a grassroots political protest movement that could organize more openly than its predecessors. This phase of the story Duberman knows personally: after spending years attempting to change his sexuality, he “turned on instantly to the new message” and joined the Gay Liberation Front. Duberman was one of the founders of the Gay Academic Union, the National LGBTQ Taskforce and the first advisory board of Lambda Legal Defense, and is considered a Founding Father of LGBT Studies.

Today, he worries that younger LGBTQ Americans may not appreciate the more under-the-radar pre-Stonewall approach, without understanding what things were like at a time when people could lose their jobs, their apartments and friends merely for being suspected of being gay. He’s also disappointed with what he sees as LGBTQ activists’ overly narrow focus on issues like monogamous marriage, which he considers a straight ideal, and not enough acceptance of different forms of relationships — or attention to other problems in society like criminal justice reform, immigration policies or income inequality, which he sees as issues that ought to broadly concern the American left.

That extensive activism is particularly key given the conclusions he’s reached about this moment in history: that we may never know who threw the “first brick” but we can say for sure that the climate of the time made it possible.

“Having written the book about Stonewall, I’ve talked to a lot of people who were there that night, and basically I think what you have to conclude is that it was that night strictly by accident,” he says. “It was in the air. That is, rebellion, anti-authoritarianism — all that was in the air.”

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. By using Blogtrottr, you agree to our policies, terms and conditions.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions.