Until the court of law actually functions properly for everyone, I'd say yes.
There are far too many high profile people that get away with far too much because the courts refuse to function.
This is an equalizer. Our way of getting justice.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Do you think "innocent until proven guilty" is starting to change?
- Thread starter Kaeden
- Start date
There are far too many high profile people that get away with far too much because the courts refuse to function.
This is an equalizer. Our way of getting justice.
People have always believed what they wanna believe, and their beliefs and perception of the person being accused influence what they believe.
Although i have always felt that the majority of people side with the victim, the thing is that sexual violence has been "politicized" , i mean you can say that being a woman has been "politicized" but i do believe that if women were saying that they were being scammed almost nobody would doubt them.
Is also weird that people do not believe women since the reason we side with the victim is empathy and we have more empathy for those we perceive as fragile i.e. women and children. I guess someone could say that society has stopped perceiving women as fragile but we know all that is not true (and why would we when we are talking about physical attacks).
Although i have always felt that the majority of people side with the victim, the thing is that sexual violence has been "politicized" , i mean you can say that being a woman has been "politicized" but i do believe that if women were saying that they were being scammed almost nobody would doubt them.
Is also weird that people do not believe women since the reason we side with the victim is empathy and we have more empathy for those we perceive as fragile i.e. women and children. I guess someone could say that society has stopped perceiving women as fragile but we know all that is not true (and why would we when we are talking about physical attacks).
I'm part of a (formerly) persecuted minority, and yes there were times (and still are times) when accusations are extremely powerful.
Having said that, evidence always considers who the accuser is, what the accusation is, who the accused is, and so forth. When people say "innocent before proven guilty", it's not saying to automatically disbelieve the accuser because of the fear of misplaced anger and violence, but rather to look at the situation before jumping right in.
And, in sexual assault cases, it's abundantly clear what the situation is, at which point guilt can then be prosecuted.
Came here to say essentially this.
The court of public opinion is swifter but also tends towards a mob mentality and isn't accountable for its actions.
I think it was less about the accusation and more Spacey's response to it that got him in boiling water so quickly.
Why do you think they're a rapist? Because of a rumor? Because TV said they're a person of interest? Because you know the person that's making the claim? That determines whether it's a appropriate or inappropriate. If you treat someone like shit, get them fired from their job, destroy their life because you heard people talking and it was wrong, then you're just a bad person regardless of what you "think." People know less than they think they do about almost everything. And, yes, people's lives have been destroyed from accusations that were just simply untrue.
It's a little scary to me that people are willing to treat others like shit simply because they think something about them without proof. That is literally what causes most of the problems in this world.
The legal standard hasn't changed, and public attitude hasn't either. It feels like society has shifted towards being more quick to assign guilt mainly because a person can sit and scroll through thousands of people voicing their opinions on Twitter. Everything is just much more visible, but we've always had the tendency to jump to conclusions of guilt absent strong evidence, just look at literal witch hunts. Unfortunately it is just animal nature to play it safe and assume something is dangerous until there's reason to believe otherwise.
It's unlikely I have the power to destroy anyone's life when I don't, in fact, know or interact with them.
I agree where this information is coming from has to be a factor in how you respond, but an individual doesn't need "proof" to form an opinion. For a lot of things, proof will be an impossible thing to attain, that doesn't mean I have to have no feelings one way or another.
it isn't just the media
for instance, i remember one of the especially shitty 4chan boards (/pol/ i think) trying to identify -- and subsequently doxxing -- a boston bomber "suspect," which fucked up his life for a significant amount of time
This, but I've never had my main problem accepting that. My beef is the large amounts of people who do not have the decency to return to something they've chose to throw themselves at and apologise and state they were wrong if so. Pride for many means silence if a witch hunt goes wrong and not returning after they've originally opened their mouth to throw shade.
Or some do return, but it's to double down even when there is evidence and claim conspiracy or I'm still somehow right. So, it's not the "public court" that's the problem as such, it's the behaviour of people within the public court especially around accepting responsibility about being wrong if they chose to engage. The Bungie topic about Destiny armour on that other site was a particularly shocking example. However, at least individual artists names weren't outed or doxxed for that. It's worse when people have a specific target to go after and get something horribly wrong.
Last edited:
anyways, as far as this sort of shit goes, i think it's important to try to remain ambivalent until sufficient evidence surfaces or guilt becomes apparent
however, it's also important to not discount, or otherwise shame, those accusing others of criminal behavior, especially sexual assault. that perpetuates an incredibly toxic environment for women in particular; it needs to be understood that not every victim of sex crimes is going to surface with something as damning as the weinstein tape
however, it's also important to not discount, or otherwise shame, those accusing others of criminal behavior, especially sexual assault. that perpetuates an incredibly toxic environment for women in particular; it needs to be understood that not every victim of sex crimes is going to surface with something as damning as the weinstein tape
The Harvey Weinstein case set a trend where we're supposed to just believe people. Spacey hasn't really tried to defend himself so nobody has really moved to defend him.
It's not exactly justice if an innocent person is being harmed. Whether you like it or not, you're hurting people when you label them as something awful without evidence and treating them like crap or worse excluding and harassing them if you have power over them.
Not many people seem to be taking the NaughtyDog sex scandal seriously and accuser in that case is a man.
Last edited:
I will never change myself on this, innocent until proven guilty. It is one of the pillars of America, along with freedom of the press and free speech. We arent some totalitarian Nazi regime or something. Gotta let reason prevail. That said, society is tending to be guilty until proven innocent, and its ruining a lot of lives. Its our immediate internet culture though, so it will only get worse.
Never in the public and only unevenly in the court system.
I am loath to support internet justice and mob rule as there is no proportionality to it or check on it, especially when innocent people fall victim to it, it is a serious issue and one I'm not sure we are at all prepared to deal with despite needing a solution to this problem for a long time now. But when it comes to a large number of these cases, most notably the current wave of sexual assault and misconduct allegations this is a direct result of our society and court systems failing to provide justice and just common decency to those victimized by this all encompassing and pervasive problem. You reap what you sow.
When we as a society continue to fail marginalized and victimized people for decades upon decades and make the legitimate pathways to justice either fruitless or painful or worse it is no surprise that people are utilizing their sheer numbers and voice to do what the courts and society at large have refused to do. Had we acted appropriately and took the claims of victims seriously we wouldn't be in this situation now where people are in a frenzy to condemn and tear down anyone who is charged with any allegation. But we've done almost the opposite and done all we can to shield those who commit these crimes, worked hard to shame and defame those who come forward and do little to nothing to discourage and inform our children and young adults what is and is not appropriate behavior and consideration for others.
I am loath to support internet justice and mob rule as there is no proportionality to it or check on it, especially when innocent people fall victim to it, it is a serious issue and one I'm not sure we are at all prepared to deal with despite needing a solution to this problem for a long time now. But when it comes to a large number of these cases, most notably the current wave of sexual assault and misconduct allegations this is a direct result of our society and court systems failing to provide justice and just common decency to those victimized by this all encompassing and pervasive problem. You reap what you sow.
When we as a society continue to fail marginalized and victimized people for decades upon decades and make the legitimate pathways to justice either fruitless or painful or worse it is no surprise that people are utilizing their sheer numbers and voice to do what the courts and society at large have refused to do. Had we acted appropriately and took the claims of victims seriously we wouldn't be in this situation now where people are in a frenzy to condemn and tear down anyone who is charged with any allegation. But we've done almost the opposite and done all we can to shield those who commit these crimes, worked hard to shame and defame those who come forward and do little to nothing to discourage and inform our children and young adults what is and is not appropriate behavior and consideration for others.
I feel like there is a way to take false allegations seriously without hyperbolizing a presumed epidemic of false allegations (or in many cases, allegations that are in reality true but with little to no physical evidence).
Shitty people will suck and we won't ever be able to remove that element from our society. But what we know we do have is an epidemic of things like sexual assault (and not false allegations). We do know that most sexual assaulters will go unpunished, and that most victims will go unheard. That doesn't mean you, personally, have to make calls for people to get fired or lose their livelihood or whatever. But, shit happens. Honestly I would think if this bothers you so much, you should be jumping up and down as an advocate for how our legal system treats victims of sexual assault. It seems...empty, in a way, to complain about "well all people have to do is make allegations and your life is ruined" while not also acknowledging in the same breath that we treat victims like dirt.
If the justice system could be a little bit more fair, maybe society wouldn't feel as if it needs to obtain justice through social methods.
I would say no, nothing has really changed as far as the concept goes, but the internet makes the effects of this common human issue more destructive. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean much outside of court because there's no standardized burden of proof we all adhere to. Our determination of guilt is unregulated. Innocent until proven guilty is still there, but a lot of people overestimate their ability to see real patterns and understand what information they have.
I think the presumption of innocence in determining guilt has more to do with the responsibility that the law has as an institution. Social institutions are meant to act as third party mediators, that is to say that we call on them when normal harmonious relations break down, and so they have to operate according to a higher standard that is reflective of the confidence that we place in them, otherwise they cease to be able to serve their function. Between individuals, I think the only prescription is that people use good judgement or try to make true determinations. Individuals don't have the kind of accountability that institutions do, but that said we can (and do) rightly criticize people for not observing rational standards with respect to their judgement.
In Spacey's case he was undermined by his own response, his aparent association with certain individuals, and rumors about him that were already out there.
I don't think this part of it has really changed that much. People will always and have always leaned toward "they did it" before any court gets near the case.
What I would like to see less of here is the shit we had on the first few pages of that Adam Sandler thread. People were ready to hang him because they didn't actually watch the footage, or the episode in which he did the same thing to Emma Thompson and she tousled his hair while talking about Trump.
It was like there was an actual thirst and joy when people read the thread. YAAAASSSSS another one we can lynch!!! DO IT DO IT DO IT.
What I would like to see less of here is the shit we had on the first few pages of that Adam Sandler thread. People were ready to hang him because they didn't actually watch the footage, or the episode in which he did the same thing to Emma Thompson and she tousled his hair while talking about Trump.
It was like there was an actual thirst and joy when people read the thread. YAAAASSSSS another one we can lynch!!! DO IT DO IT DO IT.
I wish yall would stop using terms like "lynch" and "witch hunt" like history happens in a vacuum. Those words means things and this aint it.
Language evolves. Both of those terms are reasonable in this context.
We're still waaaaaaaay too close chronologically to actual lynchings to declare that one "evolved", I'd think.
when angry mobs shows up outside ya house to burn you at the stake and hang you by the rope, let me know.
Fun fact: 93% of federal indictments in the US end up in convictions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
"Lynchings" and "witch hunts" are absolutely not reasonable in the context of a bunch of people making comments on an internet thread, come on.
Well, it's a complex issue, and it's going to take a complex answer to respond to it, I suppose.
First off, and I know it's been reiterated by pretty much everyone above me, but the presumption of innocence is a legal standard, not a moral or ethical one. I as an individual or as a member of society do not have to wait for someone to be tried and sentence before forming an opinion of them. To take the most extreme example: Bill Cosby is an asshole of the highest order. I think we can all agree on that. I think we can all agree that he should be judged morally by members of society for his actions, despite still being "innocent".
Secondly, I do believe people should wait for evidence before making up their minds, and that works both ways. I think it should be pointed out as well that victims who come out face as much if not quite a bit more grief than the accused. I personally never jump in on he said, she said kind of arguments aside from sometimes saying "screw him/her if true", which implies I'm not yet sure if it's true or not. However, I have no problems looking at the evidence of a crime and judging the person being accused or not.
To use the example of sexual harassment, abusers rarely ever act only once. There is almost always a pattern of behavior that forms and at that point there are quite a few people willing to testify to that. We can also look at a persons behavior and response to any accusations to determine how we feel about an incident. And yeah, when it's murky, I'm not going to blame people one way or another for coming to a conclusion. I personally try to stay out of it until there's enough evidence one way or another. But again, that given sufficient evidence, we as individuals can choose to judge people and organizations, despite being not guilty.
As an addendum, to see what happens when presumption of innocence gets thrown away (legally), look at a coutry like Japan, which has something like a 99% conviction rate. That's why it's important to frame innocence until proven guilty as a legal issue first and foremost. It still is quite important in many places around the world.
First off, and I know it's been reiterated by pretty much everyone above me, but the presumption of innocence is a legal standard, not a moral or ethical one. I as an individual or as a member of society do not have to wait for someone to be tried and sentence before forming an opinion of them. To take the most extreme example: Bill Cosby is an asshole of the highest order. I think we can all agree on that. I think we can all agree that he should be judged morally by members of society for his actions, despite still being "innocent".
Secondly, I do believe people should wait for evidence before making up their minds, and that works both ways. I think it should be pointed out as well that victims who come out face as much if not quite a bit more grief than the accused. I personally never jump in on he said, she said kind of arguments aside from sometimes saying "screw him/her if true", which implies I'm not yet sure if it's true or not. However, I have no problems looking at the evidence of a crime and judging the person being accused or not.
To use the example of sexual harassment, abusers rarely ever act only once. There is almost always a pattern of behavior that forms and at that point there are quite a few people willing to testify to that. We can also look at a persons behavior and response to any accusations to determine how we feel about an incident. And yeah, when it's murky, I'm not going to blame people one way or another for coming to a conclusion. I personally try to stay out of it until there's enough evidence one way or another. But again, that given sufficient evidence, we as individuals can choose to judge people and organizations, despite being not guilty.
As an addendum, to see what happens when presumption of innocence gets thrown away (legally), look at a coutry like Japan, which has something like a 99% conviction rate. That's why it's important to frame innocence until proven guilty as a legal issue first and foremost. It still is quite important in many places around the world.
Last edited:
I didn't say offensive. I'd say using "lynching" is outright offensive in this context. Witch hunt is just less reasonable in the context of a bunch of commenters online.
I mean come on the post that started this chain of thought was someone saying people are "ready to hang him." Like, we can't do any of that here. We have no power. We're a goddamned gaming forum. Us discussing what Adam Sandler might have done isn't even remotely equivalent to lynching someone or chasing down women and accusing them of witchcraft. That's insanity.
if your argument is simply based on "everybody's been doing it, whats the problem?" then it's not a strong one.
It's less that it's offensive than it is a very poor descriptor of people having a conversation. No one's hunting witches, no one's got pitchforks in their hands, and no one is being hung. It's cheap rhetoric designed to shut down conversation.
I think he's talking about "ordinary Americans" (to quote Bernie)
The hard part is that these things are basically impossible to prove so the alternative is for those harrassed to shut up unless you secretly recorded them.
I should note, a "claim" is evidence. It's someone testifying about what they saw happen, and it is permissible in a court of law. I tend to find testimonials the least compelling of any type of evidence for many reasons. But that doesn't mean they carry no weight, and that we shouldn't take them at face value, because we absolutely should.
Sexual harassment and most types of sexual assault will be a type of crime that heavily relies on testimonials. It also tends to be the type of crime that offenders repeat many multitudes of times. That's why most of the harassment claims you have been seeing blowing up recently have been a bunch of people all claiming similar events have happened. At a certain point, the evidence based off the testimonials of so many different people becomes impossible to ignore.
If your argument is "this term used to refer to one thing therefore can't be used in any other context" then it's similarly weak.
That's not what the term means. It basically refers to an hysterical persecution of people that relies upon popular opinion and incomplete or limited evidence.
I think the term is appropriate. A mob of people punishing a guy without consulting the court. That's basically how lynchings went down. Nobody is dying but the outcome is still horrible for the accused if they're innocent.
If you're using it to evoke an emotional reaction of "these people are being strung up and killed based on nothing but whispers and rumors". There's a reason why you're defensive over witch hunt because it places a burden of irrationality on behalf of the purported "Mob". That whatever the mob is hunting, it's ultimately a bunch of nothing. Because sexual assau- I mean witches, don't actually exist
Imagine invoking a term used to refer to the hunting of women accused of witchcraft for people accused of sexual assault, which in likelihood happens far more often than most of us would like to admit.
Gonna have to explain to me how a bunch of people talking on a video game forum are punishing someone. Unless the person is literally a part of our community we can and do almost literally nothing to them. Like do you really think we have any effect at all on Kevin Spacey or Adam Sandler here? Like us just conversing about it negatively does anything comparable to hanging.
Am lawyer.
As others have stated, "innocent until proven guilty" is for a court of law. That is because the State can do things like incarcerate you or even execute you, in addition to seizing your assets. In our private lives, the story is different. Should we unduly rush to tear down any individual based off of the accusation of one individual? Probably not. This sort of mob mentality is what led to things like lynchings or drumheads in the past. That said, the public nor any private individual/company, should have to "wait for all the facts" or for the results of a full blown trial before casting their own judgment. Individuals can make up their own opinions about a certain person based on whatever knowledge they possess at the time. If fifty women come out and state that Bill Cosby raped them, the general public need not wait for a trial before deciding that he is a morally bankrupt scumbag. We should always strive to insure we have enough "facts" before "convicting" someone of any wrongdoing. But, only a criminal trial stipulates that a person is "innocent until proven guilty," that they are provided with a full trial overseen by a jury of their peers, and that any conviction must be validated by sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Outside of a court room we all can use our own set of standards to determine whether or not we believe an individual is guilty of any wrongdoing.
You should do more research.
As others have stated, "innocent until proven guilty" is for a court of law. That is because the State can do things like incarcerate you or even execute you, in addition to seizing your assets. In our private lives, the story is different. Should we unduly rush to tear down any individual based off of the accusation of one individual? Probably not. This sort of mob mentality is what led to things like lynchings or drumheads in the past. That said, the public nor any private individual/company, should have to "wait for all the facts" or for the results of a full blown trial before casting their own judgment. Individuals can make up their own opinions about a certain person based on whatever knowledge they possess at the time. If fifty women come out and state that Bill Cosby raped them, the general public need not wait for a trial before deciding that he is a morally bankrupt scumbag. We should always strive to insure we have enough "facts" before "convicting" someone of any wrongdoing. But, only a criminal trial stipulates that a person is "innocent until proven guilty," that they are provided with a full trial overseen by a jury of their peers, and that any conviction must be validated by sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Outside of a court room we all can use our own set of standards to determine whether or not we believe an individual is guilty of any wrongdoing.
You should do more research.
Last edited:
Which might be relevant if a large group of people were punishing or persecuting someone, but that's not what's happening. People are expressing their opinions, and companies are punishing their employees based on their perceptions of what are acceptable for their business. You can keep making fake rhetorical claims about what people are doing, but short of eliminating free speech, you can't stop people from expressing their opinions on subjects. And you can try to transfer blame from the corporations actually engaging in punishment to the people speaking their mind, but reasonable people are going to call you on that, too.