Do you think "innocent until proven guilty" is starting to change?

[Kaeden]

Or has society always seemed to be more "guilty until proven innocent"?

First, I know not all countries follow this way of criminal law and I'm not really referring to this changing, more about society in general. Maybe many people never thought this way to begin with but it just seems lately that more and more stories are developing where everyone is guilty from the moment a story breaks until they're somehow proven to be innocent - or never at all.

I just read the latest story about how season six of House of Cards has been halted and now on hiatus based on the recent news about Spacey. I'm not about to imply that he's innocent, not at all, but my first reaction was that the executives in charge immediately thought he might be guilty and stopped production in its tracks. Clearly it's something they need to look into since many people are involved in the production so I can understand why they did it.

But are we, as a society, basically saying he's guilty right here and now and unjustly condemning him based on just this one story? I've never heard of anything remotely like this about him until now, so there's no pattern essentially which could make it more plausible so it just seems like anyone could come out and accuse someone of this and instantly ruin their career. I guess that's when defamation of character lawsuits get filed. That just seems like such a hard thing to prove with this specific story. Anyways, I digress...

 

[Bandage]

Innocent until proven guilty is for the court of law. Not the court of public opinion.

 

[shaneo632]

I think it generally defers to the accused person's reaction. Spacey's response basically seemed like a fairly flippant "I don't remember it but it probably happened". If he'd flat-out denied it then there would've been far more people prepared to wait for an investigation.

Some of the posts on this board can be pretty embarrassing when someone is accused of doing stuff and it turns out to be nothing. I tend to wait a little while before getting too mad, especially if the accused hasn't yet responded. Spacey's comment makes it pretty clear he wasn't too fussed about defending himself beyond deflecting the conversation onto his sexuality, which backfired horribly.

 

[Kaeden]

I think it generally defers to the accused person's reaction. Spacey's response basically seemed like a fairly flippant "I don't remember it but it probably happened". If he'd flat-out denied it then there would've been far more people prepared to wait for an investigation.

Click to shrink...

Yeah this is a really good point. When I read his response, I was pretty amazed at how he didn't flat out deny it and instead say that if it happened, he was terribly sorry and drunk(?). I think everyone expects the reaction to always immediately deny it so this response was odd for sure but maybe there was some strategy there instead of just denying it even if that's how he truly feels or knows that he didn't do it.

 

[The Almighty Tria]

It has been like this forever and it's awful. Think about all the lives that have been ruined because people are found guilty before innocent, even though they were innocent. Both in terms of public opinion and the court of law.

 

[Magni]

Wasn't the House of Cards thing planned long before the recent Spacey accusation?

OT: people are by nature "guilty before innocent" thinkers, "innocent before guilty" is an artificial concept imposed (and rightfully so) by more civilized societies. That said, social media has made it tougher to properly follow the principle. Before you had to be a rich asshole (think Trump and the Central Park Five) to not wait for justice to be done before claiming someone was guilty (I'm only talking about civilized societies here, extrajudicial lynchings in the South are another matter, and not talking about private thoughts that had no real impact on wider society). Today, any asshole with an internet connection can start an online mob. We need some kind of legislation on the matter actually. You wouldn't allow IRL mobs to spring like they do online.

 

[knocturnalis]

just read the latest story about how season six of House of Cards has been halted and now on hiatus based on the recent news about Spacey. I'm not about to imply that he's innocent, not at all, but my first reaction was that the executives in charge immediately thought he might be guilty and stopped production in its tracks. Clearly it's something they need to look into since many people are involved in the production so I can understand why they did it.

Click to shrink...

Given that there have been online rumors of him perving on males on set, I'm sure they know if it is true or not.

 

[oledome]

The show was supposedly going to end at season 6 anyway, PR move for Netflix.

 

[Pendas]

Innocent until proven guilty is for the court of law. Not the court of public opinion.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much this. With the existence of social media... public opinion has a very wide reach. People have been found innocent in the court of law and their reputation was still ruined and unrecoverable. In this day and age... public perception > truth. You don't need to look any further than Trump to see that.

 

[ashep]

I think it generally defers to the accused person's reaction. Spacey's response basically seemed like a fairly flippant "I don't remember it but it probably happened". If he'd flat-out denied it then there would've been far more people prepared to wait for an investigation.

Some of the posts on this board can be pretty embarrassing when someone is accused of doing stuff and it turns out to be nothing. I tend to wait a little while before getting too mad, especially if the accused hasn't yet responded. Spacey's comment makes it pretty clear he wasn't too fussed about defending himself beyond deflecting the conversation onto his sexuality, which backfired horribly.

Click to shrink...

The Piven thread suggests otherwise.

 

[dark494]

Wasn't the House of Cards thing planned long before the recent Spacey accusation?

Click to shrink...

I believe it was this past summer they were asked about this and when/if it would end, but they did not definitively say whether or not it would end or where it would go. Then yesterday they announced that season 6 would definitively be the final season, but then today they suspended indefinitely all production/filming of season 6, so it may not even happen anymore.

 

[Talraen]

Re: the "innocent until proven guilty only applies to law" response: this is legally true. But of course that's all that's legally true, because the law can't (and shouldn't) dictate how people react to something, particularly on an emotional level. But similar to the concept of free speech, innocent until proven guilty is still a societal principle as well as a legal one. I think there's a lot of value in not calling for someone's head as soon as an accusation is made, even if it's often appropriate to shun that person and act as if they very well may be guilty.

That said, I'm not sure things are that much different now than they ever were, I think we just hear about more because of the Internet. In my experience, people tend to assume accused people they like are innocent, and people they dislike are guilty. The only thing that may have changed is (again because of the Internet) the people's voices are more immediately heard. I don't think execs such as those running House of Cards are running on a principle of "guilty until proven innocent," they're just trying to stay ahead of the social blowback.

 

[mac]

There was a podcast that covered how even being labeled a "person of interest," ruined the life of a man accused of child abduction.

https://www.apmreports.org/in-the-dark

For 27 years, the investigation into the abduction of Jacob Wetterling in rural Minnesota yielded no answers. Reporter Madeleine Baran reveals how law enforcement mishandled one of the most notorious child abductions in the country and how those failures fueled national anxiety about stranger danger, led to the nation's sex-offender registries and raise questions about crime-solving effectiveness and accountability.

Click to shrink...

The entire media/justice link is disgusting.

 

[Deleted member 1413]

Innocent until proven guilty is for the court of law. Not the court of public opinion.

Click to shrink...

Yep.
We're not going to jail you for something that's not proven, but society can get pissed off at you until proven otherwise

 

[Kaeden]

Wasn't the House of Cards thing planned long before the recent Spacey accusation?

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this was about how the production has halted without being finished, not the ending of the series. That was apparently long since decided.

 

[Raptor Jesus]

In the age of social media - very much so.

People like to spout off opinions without facts because they will never be called out in it and if they are they can just block you.

 

[dark494]

Yep.
We're not going to jail you for something that's not proven, but society can get pissed off at you until proven otherwise

Click to shrink...

But a lot of times the unwarranted, and sometimes even unfounded, hysteria that comes from mere allegations, which are by definition statements made without proof or validity, is enough to destroy people's reputations and livelihoods, moreso than a jail sentence would have.

Edit: It's the principle of the matter, it's taught in ethics and law courses that the law reflects society's values and beliefs, but clearly that's not the case when it comes to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

 

[Puweyxil]

It should be changed to innocent unless proven guilty.

 

[Man God]

Guilty until proven innocent also leads to nasty stuff like lynching.

 

[potam]

I wonder, was it ever innocent until proven guilty in the public eye? I personally think all that information shouldn't be publicly available, aside from certain situations.

But I do think it's important to note that the phrase only means that it's on the government to provide proof of guilt, and not on the suspect to provide proof of innocence.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

All people want is to be heard.

Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts.

Just listen.

 

[BobLoblaw]

"Guilty until proven innocent." Has that not always been the case for minorities?

 

[Kaeden]

I wonder, was it ever innocent until proven guilty in the public eye? I personally think all that information shouldn't be publicly available, aside from certain situations.

But I do think it's important to note that the phrase only means that it's on the government to provide proof of guilt, and not on the suspect to provide proof of innocence.

Click to shrink...

I certainly can't speak for anyone other than myself but for any first time offenses that I've heard of that were all based on nothing but a wild accusation or conjecture, I have always tried to believe the person is innocent until proven otherwise. This is mostly about stuff that's in the media of course so I'm sure many of the facts aren't revealed. But if this is the 2nd, 3rd or more occurrence of said allegation or charge, yeah I'll quickly switch over to guilty because of the pattern formed. Luckily I've never had to deal with something like this with anyone close to me because it could be very, very hard to stick to the facts and not be biased.

 

[Deleted member 43]

As has been said, "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal idea. An individual has no obligation to not form an opinion on a subject, even if that opinion ends up being in opposition to what a court finds. After all, a juror in a criminal case should vote for innocence even if they think the defendant is guilty if they do not hold that belief beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Pooh]

Court of public opinion has always tended towards guilty. The legal system is supposed to protect us from our mob mentality.

 

[legacyzero]

I think we're too quick to rule out the slight chance that accusations for certain events could be manufactured. Are they most often true? Sure. But even a handful of wrongfully accused people is enough to exercise the caution necessary to ensure Due Process is exercised.

Burden of proof lies on the accuser, no matter the circumstances, like it or not.

 

[absolutbro]

Yep.
We're not going to jail you for something that's not proven, but society can get pissed off at you until proven otherwise

Click to shrink...

Are we really pretending it stops when theyre found innocent?

 

[FeistyBoots]

It's funny how important this question suddenly becomes when it involves a privileged white guy.

You might not even intend it, but there's probably some inherent bias in your question worth examining.

 

[WaffleTaco]

The public sways with the wind. The courts of law are more rooted in precedent.

 

[Deleted member 43]

I think we're too quick to rule out the slight chance that accusations for certain events could be manufactured. Are they most often true? Sure. But even a handle of wrongfully accused people is enough to exercise the caution necessary to ensure Due Process is exercised.

Burden of proof lies on the accuser, no matter the circumstances, like it or not.

Click to shrink...

Again, for the legal system that's true.

But for out own opinions? If someone I trust tells me something (realistic) happened, absent any proof, I will most likely believe them. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Hat22]

Innocent until proven guilty is for the court of law. Not the court of public opinion.

Click to shrink...

Or has society always seemed to be more "guilty until proven innocent"?

Click to shrink...

A long while ago an MP in New Zealand proposed a law that would have guilty until proven innocent for sexual accusations. Hopefully we don't see politicians in other western countries proposing similar laws since these laws could actually pass in the current climate.

The logic behind this is that false rape accusations are extremely rare so we may as well just assume that the victim is truthful.

People freak out when I say this but yeah, innocent until proven guilty. It should take concrete evidence to strip people of their freedom.

I think the same logic should be applied to court of public opinion. It should take concrete evidence to ruin a life.

But for out own opinions? If someone I trust tells me something (realistic) happened, absent any proof, I will most likely believe them. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Click to shrink...

There is something wrong with that if you take action based on those claims. Believing them to support them is something you do though.

 

[Deleted member 43]

There is something wrong with that if you take action based on those claims. Believing them to support them is something you do though.

Click to shrink...

Not really, no. Unless by "taking action" I break the law, I am perfectly within my rights to act on my beliefs.

 

[legacyzero]

Again, for the legal system that's true.

But for out own opinions? If someone I trust tells me something (realistic) happened, absent any proof, I will most likely believe them. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely true. And I agree.

Where I begin to wince is when a person's livelihood is totally affected. Shows cancelled, jobs lost, personally vilified, etc. and while I agree that an individual should face those consequences, what happens on that off chance that the accusation is proven untrue? The public has run this person into the dirt for nothing.

Imagine being in that spot. A person becomes angry at you for whatever reason, and suddenly tries to destroy you in the worst way possible. How would you feel, knowing that your life just got destroyed based only on an accusation.

 

[Hollywood Duo]

Watch Making a Murderer if you want to understand how dangerous "guilty until proven innocent" can be.

Having said that, if someone like Spacey is universally reviled it just makes good business sense to drop him. It's not a charity case.

 

[xenocide]

Innocent until proven guilty is for the court of law. Not the court of public opinion.

Click to shrink...

One and done.

But the reality is once accused of a crime people presume the accused is guilty. A lot of people aren't well versed in the lengths law enforcement will often go to get ANYBODY tied to a crime. I'm a huge fan of true crime stories/documentaries and you start to see there are a lot of flaws in the way the justice system works. As far as I know most law enforcement agencies are judged based on things like conviction rates and the time it takes to get suspects into jails. Police officers will often just get a first suspect and work backwards from there to fit the crime to the suspect which is kind of unavoidable but sometimes blinds them to alternatives theories which could lead to getting the correct suspect.

I can't say there's a better alternative, but there is definitely a problem.

 

[Squarehard]

Social media has certainly played a big role in shifting this.

 

[Deleted member 43]

Absolutely true. And I agree.

Where I begin to wince is when a person's livelihood is totally affected. Shows cancelled, jobs lost, personally vilified, etc. and while I agree that an individual should face those consequences, what happens on that off chance that the accusation is proven untrue? The public has run this person into the dirt for nothing.

Imagine being in that spot. A person becomes angry at you for whatever reason, and suddenly tries to destroy you in the worst way possible. How would you feel, knowing that your life just got destroyed based only on an accusation.

Click to shrink...

I would feel horrible.

But...what is the alternative? Asking people to turn off the part of their brains that makes decisions is not a realistic option. People should be open to the idea that they are wrong, and willing to admit it, but otherwise all anyone can do it make the best judgment they can given the information available to them.

 

[Deepwater]

Innocent until proven guilty is for the court of law. Not the court of public opinion.

Click to shrink...

one and done.

 

[bsigg]

Wasn't there an article a month or so back where more DAs are offering up plea deals and they're being accepted more often because it avoids the costs and time of going to a trial?

 

[Deleted member 43]

Wasn't there an article a month or so back where more DAs are offering up plea deals and they're being accepted more often because it avoids the costs and time of going to a trial?

Click to shrink...

That has been the case for a very long time. The vast, VAST majority of cases never go to trial.

 

[xenocide]

Wasn't there an article a month or so back where more DAs are offering up plea deals and they're being accepted more often because it avoids the costs and time of going to a trial?

Click to shrink...

I know this is the truth with lower level offenses where the suspect can't afford to post bail. They basically strongarm them into plea deals to get them out of Jails. With how drawn out the process can be often people will take plea deals just for some level of certainty.

 

[Hat22]

Not really, no. Unless by "taking action" I break the law, I am perfectly within my rights to act on my beliefs.

Click to shrink...

You're right but by treating accused people poorly you may also be contributing to their victimization if they turn out to be innocent of what they've been accused of.

I think this discussion is being colored by the fact that we're currently dealing with a situation where wealthy people are being accused and having minor things like the loss of gigs happen to them. An unproven or unprovable accusation hanging over a normal person's head could be a life ruining problem.

 

[Kaeden]

I would feel horrible.

But...what is the alternative? Asking people to turn off the part of their brains that makes decisions is not a realistic option. People should be open to the idea that they are wrong, and willing to admit it, but otherwise all anyone can do it make the best judgment they can given the information available to them.

Click to shrink...

Yeah imagine the scenario where a good friend tells you another good friend did something wrong. Whether it was commit a crime or something not as severe, how do you choose which way to side? You take all the information given and try to come to the right conclusion. Sadly there is no definitive 'right' conclusion if you don't have all the facts but one way or another, you're going to have an opinion and you shouldn't be shunned for it - unless you weren't honest and/or showed some type of bias.

 

[Salty Rice]

Innocent until proven guilty is for the court of law. Not the court of public opinion.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much this.

The public opinion doesnt really care if its proven or not.

If they want to believe you they gonna do it. If they want to condemn you they gonna do it.

 

[bsigg]

That has been the case for a very long time. The vast, VAST majority of cases never go to trial.

Click to shrink...

I figured that was the case.

I know this is the truth with lower level offenses where the suspect can't afford to post bail. They basically strongarm them into plea deals to get them out of Jails. With how drawn out the process can be often people will take plea deals just for some level of certainty.

Click to shrink...

I'd be curious to hear how many people have a felony or misdemeanor on their record because they didn't have the money or time to fight it and the DA's plea deal seemed too good to refuse.

 

[Deleted member 43]

You're right but by treating accused people poorly you may also be contributing to their victimization if they turn out to be innocent of what they've been accused of.

I think this discussion is being colored by the fact that we're currently dealing with a situation where wealthy people are being accused and having minor things like the loss of gigs happen to them. An unproven or unprovable accusation hanging over a normal person's head could be a life ruining problem.

Click to shrink...

If I treat someone as guilty and it turns out they were innocent, I did something wrong, and should admit such and try to make amends.

But that doesn't change the fact that if I think someone is, say, a rapist, I am going to treat them differently. It would be impossible, and actually inappropriate, to do otherwise.

 

[Hat22]

I'd be curious to hear how many people have a felony or misdemeanor on their record because they didn't have the money or time to fight it and the DA's plea deal seemed too good to refuse.

Click to shrink...

Public defenders review your case for like 15 minutes. There is probably millions of cases like this.

 

[Midramble]

Is everyone ok with the court of public opinion being this way? It comes with its own set of punitive actions.

 

[xenocide]

Public defenders review your case for like 15 minutes. There is probably millions of cases like this.

Click to shrink...

There are states that don't even have enough PD's to cover the case load (if I remember correctly it was a crisis in LA) so in some places you don't even meet them until your arraignment and only see them in the court room.

 

[ailaeshiz]

I can't tell if it's a coincidence or sexism that it took literally one guy's allegations to get Spacey in hot water, whereas it would usually take 5+ women for any other actor.