I know I'm gonna get bloody here (hopefully not really); but, truth is important.
There's a false narrative that Cosby's release from prison is a conflict between morality and legality. Two things can be true at the same time. It would be right if Cosby were properly punished for his crimes to which he admitted - there's no doubt anymore as to his guilt. He incriminated himself. Also, it would be immoral to keep him in prison when you know how he got there.
Sometimes, oftentimes, the process is more important than the outcome. Our legal system is supposed to err toward letting guilty people go free lest we accidentally punish an innocent person. We clearly don't do a good job of that being that we have the largest prison population on the planet; but, that's a principle that we shouldn't reject.
The Cosby case is kinda a reverse OJ in some ways. Namely, OJ was acquitted in criminal court wherein the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and then found responsible for the murders in civil court wherein the burden of proof is more likely than not. At this point, we're all pretty sure that OJ got away with murder; but, that's not a miscarriage of justice, we are supposed to hold the state's feet to the fire when they want to take away anyone's freedom.
Cosby was tried civilly first and criminally second. He was tried in civil court because the prosecutor and the investigators decided that there wasn't a chance that they would be able to make a case that Cosby was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt unless he confessed. In criminal court, Cosby could plead the fifth, never testify, never say a word. The case would have been dead on arrival.
Cosby didn't have the same out in the civil court. So, the DA went after Cosby in civil court and it's in writing that the state wouldn't pursue criminal charges after the fact and that testimony in the civil court would be inadmissable.
During the civil trial, Cosby admitted to what he did. We know that he committed multiple felonies because of the civil case.
A new DA came in, ignored the agreement that was made by the previous DA, charged Cosby criminally and illegally used the testimony from the civil trial.
Is there an argument here that the end justifies the means? Yeah, there's an argument; but ,it's a bad one. It would be better if Cosby were to serve the appropriate amount of time in prison; but, not at the sacrifice of due process.
Imagine the precedent that would be set if Cosby's conviction were upheld despite the details of the case. It would vindicate the government lying to you in order to get around your constitutional rights in order to throw you in jail. It would say that contracts with the government mean nothing and can be voided when deemed expedient. We'd be doing that in a country (not perfect numbers but too close) that has five percent of the world's population and twenty-five percent of her prisoners.
I would take a hundred Bill Cosby's going free to prevent one more Brian Banks or one more Ledell Lee.