comment: >
  
  The gist of the law is that the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits related to sexual assault of an adult is temporarily being extended to November 24, 2023.  
  As far as I can tell, it's not an ex post facto issue because it's not changing what counts as sexual assault.  People could only be sued for conduct that met the definition of sexual assault at the time of the incident.  The only thing changing is the time limit on filing the lawsuit.  Additionally, it only applies to civil lawsuits, not criminal charges.
  Double jeopardy wouldn't apply because this is an extension to file a lawsuit in the first place.  It doesn't give anyone the ability to file a second lawsuit if they already filed one.
context: Maybe i'm not paying close enough attention, but, how is Cosby not doing time already? 
  Is it a 'prison is for poor people' kind of thing? >
  
  He was in prison. He got out.
  His sentence was overturned based off of a prior agreement in another civil suit where he was promised that his testimony couldn't be used in criminal proceedings. For other alleged incidents, the statue of limitations has passed and/or victims aren't coming forward. >
  
  It sounds utterly against public policy for civil testimony to be contracted out of criminal proceedings. Is there a strong basis for this? >
  
  You have a constitutional right against self incrimination. That means the state can't force you to testify if doing so would incriminate yourself. To get around this prosecutors will offer someone immunity; if you can't be charged with the crime your testimony can't be incriminating, therefore stripping you of your fifth amendment protection.
  In Cosby's case the prosecutor gave him criminal immunity so they could force him to testify against himself, making it possible for his victim to win her civil case against him. They later tried to go back and prosecute him criminally anyways, and the courts overturned that because he had been granted immunity, which is why he was released. >
  
  I mention below that the prosecutors have to buy into this. The situation you describe makes logical sense, thanks. I'm just surprised a prosecutor would give that up for the benefit of a civil case (unless they knew they didn't have enough to go after him criminally). >
  
  
  I'm just surprised a prosecutor would give that up for the benefit of a civil case (unless they knew they didn't have enough to go after him criminally).
  
  That's exactly what happened. They thought they didn't have enough to win the criminal case, but knew that the confession would help the victim in the civil case. They decided helping the victim recover in the civil case was sufficient so they granted immunity.
  The big kerfluffle here is that later, a different prosecutor, argued that Cosby hadn't actually been granted immunity (there is a distinct lack of paperwork confirming that immunity) and had simply confessed. This didn't hold up in higher courts which is why he was later released. >
  
  
  The big kerfluffle here is that later, a different prosecutor, argued that Cosby hadn't actually been granted immunity (there is a distinct lack of paperwork confirming that immunity) and had simply confessed. This didn't hold up in higher courts which is why he was later released.
  
  You know what, at some point you have to decide whether you are really "the good guys" or not. Dangling immunity and then trying to snatch it away on a technicality is arguably the more dangerous evil to society (yes, even than an abject, abominable rapist). >
  
  that's why the prosecutor who did this should punch themself in the throat >
  
  Is this going to postpone his comedy tour? >
  
  This is the comedy tour. >
  
  And it kills. >
  
  Weren’t his lawyers saying he was too blind and decrepit to serve in prison and now he’s miraculously recovered and getting ready to do a comedy tour? >
  
  I'm starting to think that lawyers aren't all that honest >
  
  A defense attorney that doesn't try every feasible avenue of defense would be a dishonest one. >
  
  Look, I agree that it's a defense attorney's job to try every feasible angle to defend your client, but that doesn't make whatever flailing attempt you make to save a disaster of a human being an act of honesty by default. You can absolutely do your job as a defense attorney and be dishonest, in fact you probably should. >
  
  They don’t pay you the big bucks to not try every Avenue they can to get you free. >
  
  I hope that serial rapist’s victims destroy him. I hope he gets no rest and is rendered pennyless for the rest of his miserable shitty life >
  
  And to think this stupid fuck is trying to go back on tour. >
  
  And that there are people out there that will still pay to see him after all this shit! >
  
  I thought ex post de facto laws were unconstitutional... So how are they able to sue for past events when they previously couldn't? 
  I mean, morally, he should be in a cell, but ethically, laws are laws, and he's out due to incompetency and outlasting the statue of limitations. >
  
  It's not a criminal law. It's civil law.
  And this happens all the time in civil cases. A California family won back some land from Los Angeles. This was decades after the originating incident took place and by people who weren't the original parties. New York and California just passed laws providing for a framework for the lawsuits to take place in the cases of Cosby and Steven Tyler. Now, the statute of limitations likely passed for the victims in these cases for the criminal incident, to be sure. >
  
  That wasn't a civil case. It's bizarre you even bring it up in comparison to this. >
  
  ig he's using a more broad term of civil for civil cases, basically anything non-criminal that is based in legal resolutions. but yeah, seems like a random one to use as an example lol. >
  
  More material for his new tour I guess. Thought this guy was near dead, but magically “got better” once he gains freedom. Weird eh? >
  
  Wow I didn’t expect his comedy tour to start so soon >
  
  This explains the plans for a comedy tour. Legal bills. >
  
  ::Cosby-esque delicious jello face:: >
  
  Won't he just move to Florida to evade any  judgment against him like OJ did? >
  
  The Cosby debacle was immensely heartbreaking to be honest, I grew up with Cosby. This was a harsh lesson that no matter how saintly a man appears never idolize them, for they may in fact be devils in disguise. >
  
  He'll never see those lawsuits,  if only because he's mostly blind these days. >
  
  My reaction to your comment: "What! Of course he will you'd hav....oh you sonofabitch, you got me." >
  
  I hear he and OJ are going on tour for a comedy act... with special guest Ye, Kevin Spacey and via zoom, Harvey Weinstein. >
  
  Sam Bankman Fried in charge of ticketing. >
  
  Sooo... upcoming comedy tour cancelled? >
  
  But I was looking forward to his comedy tour /s >
  
  Still waiting for his “I’m running as a conservative” announcement. >
  
  Please keep this asshole tied up in courts. The thought of him actually going on tour makes me fucking sick. >
  
  I like the idea of him going on tour, as long as every penny he makes goes to his victims. >
  
  Should have kept your pudding pop in your pants, Bill. >
  
  Good. Impoverish that rapist. Him dying in prison would be better, but this would be something at least. >
  
  Wow! Harsh. >
  
  Time to go back to J- A - I- L  for J - E - L - L - O >
  
  Why he always look like he’s farting? >
  
  Because he is farting. >
  
  So I'm guessing he is postponing his comedy comeback? >
  
  So he's subject to a new law that wasn't extant when he committed his crimes.
  This is interesting. >
  
  No. Sexual assault was illegal when he did those things.
  The statue of limitations is now extended for civil liability. >
  
  Theres almost no way to provide evidence or defense for decades old accusations. It's a bad law. >
  
  I'm surprised no one has challenged the expansion of statute of limitations increasing being applied retroactively based on potential conflicts with fifth amendment.
  Glad creeps are getting caught since society has changed but strange from a legal perspective. >
  
  Hopefully this time they don’t fuck up and he stays in jail. >
  
  Take everything he has. POS doesn’t even get a coffin. Let them bury him naked in the dirt. >
  
  Lol someone downvoted you for saying a rapist is bad. >
  
  This dude should die in jail man, wtf. >
  
  No OJ Simpson pass here. A criminal treated appropriately like a criminal. >
  
  He deserves what he gets, but I feel like there are so much more worse celebrities that have gotten away with even more egregious crimes. >
  
  Celebrity trials keep us busy so we dont hold politician trials. >
  
  But defending Cosby at all, but does this new law sound an awful lot like ex post facto or double Jeopardy? Or am I entirely misunderstanding the law? If I am, does anyone have a summary of it?