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

[Resetta Stone]

Not that there hasn't already been precedent, but social media has amplified the concept of guilty until proven innocent and changed the social dynamics of people. In the long term, I can't help but think people are going to be more paranoid of eachother offline.

 

[Deleted member 1635]

This is just like how so many people don't understand what freedom of speech means. Tell me when people start being thrown in jail for mere allegations. Until then, no, it innocent until proven guilty is still the order of the day.

 

[mac]

I think you're being a bit more absolutist than the statement was implying. The contention was more that the deck is stacked against minorities, not that they are found guilty literally every time. Even OJ's acquittal (which involved the efforts of the most expensive criminal defense team ever assembled) was in a way a response towards racism in the justice system. One of the investigators was recorded saying he wanted to kill minorities and had to plead the fifth when asked if he tampered with evidence.

Click to shrink...

Ok. I take legal matters as legal matters given my job. I also was a philosophy grad and It irks me to see people toss around phrases like truth, reason, and implication. I'm adjusting to this new forum but I still fucking hate people telling me to "read more" on an issue that I've read enough.

For instance, if a guy with a doctorate in Israel Palestine issues disagrees with you it's not so simple to say, Read this book you uninformed moron.

 

[Brian McDoogle]

Regarding mob justice and lynchings: those things resulted in people being brutally murdered or hung from trees without trials.

Regarding witch hunts: those things resulted in people being burned alive at stakes or hung from trees without trials.

In these types of sexual assault cases, all people are doing is turning their backs on individuals and their careers.

 

[TinfoilHatsROn]

First, you must explain how we are "going in circles." I think you are just using this for verbal flair and you don't know what that phrase means. You said the "original post" and I asked what you were referring to. That's not circular. You made a statement, I called it out, and then you say it's "circular." It doesn't work that way.

Click to shrink...

We are "going in circles" because you don't seem to understand the fact that your post was just a disagreement without any substance to the argument. I literally quoted it for you, but you seem to have ignored it. You didn't call out anything, I called you out.

My argument is that it's not "always" been the case against minorities. Personally, I say it's not the case because I don't assume a black man is any more an idiot, vicious, rage-filled ex-husband than a white man. I've done jury duty and the defendant's race is meaningless.

Click to shrink...

Great. You personally not being a racist doesn't mean society isn't racist. Historically, and in the context of our argument, black men have been considered "guilty until proven innocent" through racial bias in our American justice system.

And black men are innocent till proven guilty under the law. O.J. is non-guilty and he's the most guilty man alive. The presumption of innocence exists in the law. Public opinion is a separate issue as many people have already said.

Click to shrink...

OJ doesn't represent the majority of black men nor the issues that they face. In fact, he assembled the best legal team money could buy in order to obtain that verdict. For example the illegal searches conducted on black men in New York, does that not presume guilt? Or even the historical case given here (Emmett Till)? Even under the law, minorities (or in this case, black men) were and still are presumed more guilty through harsher punishments than their counterparts. It's not a literal "minorities are proven guilty until innocent", it's a statement on the unfairness and bias the justice system has to minorities. These were the articles given to you by the other poster.

 

[Deleted member 2625]

Regarding mob justice and lynchings: those things resulted in people being brutally murdered or hung from trees without trials.

Regarding witch hunts: those things resulted in people being burned alive at stakes or hung from trees without trials.

In these types of sexual assault cases, all people are doing is turning their backs on individuals and their careers.

Click to shrink...

this is a good point - but i want to add (or rather reiterate) a couple of details:

1. this is tied up with celebrity, the MeToo campaign. if you are famous in show business you probably have some power. which is why people feel a comfort accusing a famous person. you know you are probably not ending their livelihood. versus, say, a teacher or day care worker, where you could totally obliterate a career with a false accusation in a couple of days.

2. multi decade old memories are not very reliable. they just aren't. has nothing to do with intent or anything. our brains are just not literal that way. and before someone says "uh, pretty sure they'd remember a rape, that's trauma" - well i'm strongly inclined to agree, but if you read about witness memory and what they have tested for (eye witness stuff in particular - i will try and dig up some links), it's sort of shocking what we do to our own memories and how they can twist over time. so when an accusation is from an event that is quite old, this should be considered. nothing should be disregarded out of hand (innocence, guilt, anything) but we should be aware of how fluid and malleable things can appear after a long time.

 

[mac]

We are "going in circles" because you don't seem to understand the fact that your post was just a disagreement without any substance to the argument. I literally quoted it for you, but you seem to have ignored it. You didn't call out anything, I called you out.

Click to shrink...

I made my statement known on the other things you quoted me on and I feel those stand. But I'm still hung up on the "going in circles" thing. I refuted it with proofs to say how silly such a statement was. That you continue to think it's a "going in circles," debate can be settled simply.
Edit: I must ask once again, "What is the original post?"

 

[Aske]

I don't think it shifted, it's just that certains practices were considered normal before are considered as they are, disgusting.

I think that society by large is reaching a greater emphasis with women than before.

Also, society used to be really good for protecting abuser with the false excuse of "private matter".

I really think that everybody is innocent until proven guilty, but this goes also for the accuser. The accuser is not to be called a liar or to be doubted until being debunked. It's why my stance is to focus on the victim.

Of course, in cases of multiples accusation from a lot of people, or a semi-justification/loosy public defense of the crime, it's normal that the public eye will condemn the accused.

Also, since the underlying subject is sexual assault, we have every reason to take those kind of accusation with the seriousness they deserve, since almost every woman is victim of those at least once in their lives, and that it's actually very rare that they speak about publicly, because of rape culture.

People using the "innocent until proved guilty" don't use the same kind of line of defense with pedophilia for instance, because i think that many men are actually afraid that their past conduct could be someday called "sexual assault". It's why we're seeing so many people defending acts which are legally and obviously sexual assault, as "seduction" or "trying to make a move".

Why are we so creepy. Damn.

Click to shrink...

Superb post Golden_Pigeon. This isn't really about the accused. It's about trying to redress a serious imbalance that has plagued society on a cultural level for far, far too long. Men need to be more aware of their actions, and the potential consequences of those actions. People don't have many tools available to them besides outrage and aggressive defense of victims to instill this awareness.

Think of it like pedophilia. Society has taken a zero-tolerance policy to sexual assault against children. I definitely feel the frothing, dehumanising hatred of anyone who might seem a bit creepy goes too far; but it's infinitely better than living in a society that doesn't care enough about predators abusing children.

Men need to be every bit as afraid of the consequences of sexual assault of women as they are of accusations of child abuse. Reason and balance will come, but right now we need to focus on tearing down rape culture.

Potential rapists need to be more afraid of ruining their lives, and less empowered by the safety of "he said, she said", victim blaming, and "don't ruin his life! She might be lying!" deflections.

Women are scared of men in the world we've created, and this has to change. What we're seeing in the court of public opinion is an aggressive push to change that world.

 

[Nightcall]

Regarding mob justice and lynchings: those things resulted in people being brutally murdered or hung from trees without trials.

Regarding witch hunts: those things resulted in people being burned alive at stakes or hung from trees without trials.

In these types of sexual assault cases, all people are doing is turning their backs on individuals and their careers.

Click to shrink...

Social media fueled lynchings are happening all over countries like Mexico, India or Brazil.

Rich white actors get accused online and maybe miss a couple roles for a soap or movie. Poor brown people get their photo posted at some random WhatsApp group and are burned alive in their houses.

 

[Cybit]

We're conflating two separate issues that have only a bit of overlap. Black people being treated more harshly by the justice system has little to do with the context of this recent social #MeToo campaign. To take what several people in this thread are positing as "mob justice" and say we are going down a path that could end up similar to minorities (but really we mean black people) being lynched and persecuted, is completely hyperbolic and tone deaf. They are two separate issues driven by two separate belief systems.

Nobody is arguing that what is happening now is perfect, and few, if anybody is being sent to jail or tried in a court of law over accusations. Nor are their civil liberties or rights or safety being put at risk. That, in itself, is a privilege. Two wrongs don't make a right, but all wrongs aint the same either. I hope that there is recourse for people falsely accused, but not in a way that doesn't address or marginalize the much bigger problem of sexual assault.

Click to shrink...

Do you think, substantially, that more people fall victim to false allegations (but not criminally prosecuted), than people are victim to sexual assault (and don't get justice)?

As a culture and a society, we've spent the last several decades shaming and marginalizing victims for speaking out about abuse and assault. We discredit them, make them out to be crazy, scorned, etc. That is an observable phenomenon I don't think anyone can argue with.

But now that some few dozen semi famous to famous men (and in some cases women) are being accused in a short time frame it's time to pump the breaks? Again, unless you think that too many people are being socially indicted that it's hard for you to believe that people could be telling the truth.

Click to shrink...

After seeing how Title IX adjucation ended up disproportionately hurting minorities - I think that the two will end up interrelated far more than they should be, and am kind of basing my thoughts on that.

I'll assume you're asking in good faith. A social climate where accusations are all you need to form opinions and act might feel empowering to the victimized, but it also empowers violent elements and lynchmobs.

I currently live in Brazil, and we are facing a very serious issue of social media vigilante groups (mostly WhatsApp neighborhood groups) posting accusations that end up in real lynchings and dead innocent people.

Then you have situations like Duterte in the Philippines. It might sound wild if you're American, but remember who is in charge of the country.

Click to shrink...

Yep. I'm also a first-gen American, so I'm coming at this from an area where moral vigilantism goes awry on a regular basis.

 

[kristoffer]

Ok. I've read this whole thread.

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
The entire media/justice link is disgusting.

Click to shrink...

This was your first post. This is fine. And then...

I'll be the first to say no.

Click to shrink...

Here's where you decided to put your boxing gloves on and pick a fight. You took a contentious topic (the presumption of guilt of minorities), which you know is contentious, and chose to take a quick swipe at another poster rather than post a real, good faith disagreement. You must have known this was going to be a controversial post.

But it was still salvageable. From here, you could have responded to the users asking for clarification by just writing out what you mean. Instead...

I'm informed on several, limited, issues. And I comment on them because I know I'm informed. Please don't tell me that all I need to do is "read more" if I disagree with your premise. There is no reason to believe I'm not as informed and I've simply chosen a different position based on my personal beliefs.

Click to shrink...

This isn't helpful. You're just making it worse by being arrogant. Worse, you've committed to this useless tangent about how informed you are, while simultaneously avoiding any discussion of what you actually meant in the first place.

For fucks sake. I know this. But thanks for telling me to "read more."

Click to shrink...

Needlessly aggressive.

Additionally, I made the criticism that just giving more information on a issue I am informed of doesn't change minds. That posters did nothing but post new "information." How were they not saying "nope" to my request for actual dialogue and discussion?

Click to shrink...

This is quite the deflection. The onus was not on them, but you, who started a fire and then poured gasoline on it.

I said I'm informed how minorities face the legal system and I didn't need more info to support my claim...

Click to shrink...

That isn't the point. When discussions like turn into never ending defensive tangents, it's always better to circle back and make your real point. Everything else is bad faith posting. You just continue making posts like these. For these reasons I'm giving you a warning and asking you to come back when you have a real point to make instead of a drive-by. It makes the thread impossible to read.

 

[Corncob]

I'm not going to pretend I don't have an opinion until something is proven in court. I wholeheartedly agree with innocent until proven guilty in that context. I'm free to make my own judgements though. And particularly in the case of sexual assault allegations I think it's more important to believe the victims, since not believing them has more damage on society than false allegations.

 

[Untzillatx]

From the perspective of courts and the judiciary system, the notion remains the same (thankfully). It is the angry Internet mob who has decided to claim "guilty unless proven innocent" and it seems like now people have to prove they haven't done whatever someone else claims they have, and that's a dangerous thing.

 

[DuffMan]

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

Click to shrink...

Public opinion can be more damning than the court of law. A rape accusation can be disproven in court and the defendant found innocent, but in the eyes of the public, they'll always be a rapist. The damage is done.

 

[Aurica]

I recognize that people are saying courts are the ones that go by the rule of innocent until proven guilty, and I don't think normal citizens should go by whatever the ruling is, but I do believe people should see the evidence and consider both sides before deciding "That person is definitely a murderer/molester/etc." Going on a gut feeling that someone seems bad so it's probably true is awful. It seems like a lot of people tend to not withhold an opinion until more information is apparent, which leads to a mob mentality in a lot of cases. I think it's unfortunate.

Examples
Kevin Spacey has many rumors about him, and he apologized without directly denying it. Fair to say he did it, or has done similar things in the past. Disgusting. Hopefully he has changed.

A person who is accused by a single person of sexual assault without evidence? Well, this is a situation where one should wait before deciding whether the individual is guilty or not.

I've seen many people jump in as soon as one allegation is raised, yelling, "Rapist, rapist," which is pretty scary stuff. Of course, on the other hand, someone coming out and accusing someone of a horrible act should not be met with "Liar! They would never do that." It's not clear cut, but one should always try to avoid jumping to conclusions.

 

[Psittacus]

It's not ideal no, but it's a logical outcome of the way things are. As already mentioned certain groups and certain crimes are just set up to fail in either the current justice system or society itself. Rape is incredibly damaging to the victim, but very difficult to get to get a conviction for because it occurs in private. So we have a few options:

- Conviction in the court of public opinion
- Largely writing off justice for rape victims
- Finding some better way despite

In addition, because the legal system has such a strict burden of proof (as it should), you don't have to look far to see terrible people getting away with crimes and flaunting it. As long as the system has high enough bars for conviction that people can drive a bus under them then the only way to achieve "justice" for their crimes is in the public sphere. That behaviour we're is inevitable. The conditions that cause it to arise are baked into the design of the system.

I think that would be more tolerable if running afoul of those flaws were risks we all take, and that we as a society could decide they were acceptable. But as it stands certain groups bear the brunt of the negative effects while others reap the benefits. I don't think that it's ideal, but I also can't in good conscience ask other people to bear that burden. I honestly don't know what the solution is though.

 

[Wackamole]

No that isn't about to change. It has always been the same. The term 'witch-hunt' didn't originate in the year 2017.
Innocent until proven guilty is law in court. In real life people just do as they please. Unless you know for a 100% that someone did it, it's guessing. "Where there is smoke, there is fire". Well, not always.
Online comments just made this more visible. And its horrific to watch online comments on stuff people know very little about. On Facebook, Youtube, but also on forums like this and Neogaf in the past it was horrific to see how fast people are with their judgement. I actually think it's scary how fast people get judged without audi alteram partem (a fair hearing where we hear BOTH sides of the story).

And the worst part is when you ask for that, people immediately place you in the camp of the suspect. As if you condone the crime.
That makes me so angry that people are being punished for being reasonable and nuanced.

The OTHER end of the story is that in court, many guilty people get away due to lack of evidence. That's horrible of course.

I'm not entirely against playing judge and executioner yourself, weirdly enough. But that's just because i don't want to see criminals getting aways with their crimes.
But you have to be really freaking sure.... like a 100% sure.

 

[Mabase]

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.

Click to shrink...

Well, you don't neccessarily HAVE to form an opinion yet. In this example, just withholding judgment until more valid information is available to you (potentially by investigating yourself), could be a wiser course of action, than prematurely condemning or forgiving something.
I think it's very important for us to not just leave it to the court to hold a fair and just assessment of a situation. I believe as individuals and as a society we have a responsibility for all of our actions, and this includes whatever we say to others on social media, in private or in public. I think it is also on us to be very cautious with our judgment. Our voices can have tremendous power and can do a lot of damage, towards the accused, the victims, all the people involved. We have to exercise more caution, but also try to be as intelligent as we can, when trying to differentiate between who is guilty and who isn't, and those who are very guilty and those who are only a little bit guilty, and deserve different measures of proportional punishment.

As a minority myself, especially as a child I've had to deal with a share of unfair accusations -stealing, lying, dirtying up places, cheating etc. There was no court to defend someone like me, or to condemn someone like me. All there was, was the opinion of a community, or parts of a community that subconsciously and/or consciously chose to believe rumours that weren't true, and make life hard for people like me.

If everyone had just held themselves to a slightly higher standard, to really find out who was actually guilty, and how strongly guilty they were, life would have been so much better.

Is this more difficult and tiring? Yes, of course, because it will often mean living in doubt about things (is my friend guilty?), or having to do uncomfortable things (Confront friends about accusations/stand up against unfair accusations. Act against your instinct). But unfortunately I don't think there's an easy way.

 

[Mabase]

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

Click to shrink...

True. The shaming of victims is a terrible, terrible behaviour that needs to stop and has nothing to do with having an objective and fair trial/judgement. Just because you're still unsure about the guilt of the perpetrator, doesn't mean you can go onto the internet and shit on the victim.

 

[DocSeuss]

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.

Click to shrink...

It's a couple things. First, everyone already knew. We were talking about this back in the day when the Singer accusations came out.

Second, we just had Weinstein taken down. So people are more likely to believe accusations. It's not so much that one dude did it as much as it is... this is really just perfect timing, and the easiest possible target anyone could have picked.

 

[Talraen]

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...

The reason we have created principles and ethics is to override our less useful impulses.

 

[endlessflood]

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

Click to shrink...

So much harm can come from this sentiment though. Once you take away the presumption of innocence, and replace it with prejudice, so many dangerous and abhorrent attitudes become possible. To reserve judgement until the facts can be properly weighed shouldn't be considered a lack of either support for victims or empathy for their suffering.

 

[Nightcall]

So much harm can come from this sentiment though. Once you take away the presumption of innocence, and replace it with prejudice, so many dangerous and abhorrent attitudes become possible. To reserve judgement until the facts can be properly weighed shouldn't be considered a lack of either support for victims or empathy for their suffering.

Click to shrink...

Exactly, as much as it feels good to call creeps out, people like Spacey remain mostly unnafected. They can hire good lawyers and have access to other incomes. Once we apply that same logic to everyone though, it's the poor and marginalized that suffer, as a public accusation can jeopardize jobs or even their own physical integrity (like the lynchings in developing countries I mentioned before).

 

[C4lukin]

I think it is getting into witch era levels of you can accuse anyone and destroy them. And whether it be Warner Bros. Or Netflix, you can totally destroy someone with an accusation, 30 years in the past with Kevin Spacey, when he was 26, and had not yet made a movie.

So why does this guy bring it up now? Spacey had done nothing outside of broadway at the time.

He was not a power player that sleeping with would gain you noteriety at the time.

And how does it happen that at the age of 14 you are left alone at a party?

The whole Hollywood thing was messed up back then. It still is. David Bowie, Mick Jagger... and so had sex with people under the age of 18.

Elvis and Great Balls of Fire guy had relationships with people well under the age of 18.

This is not a defense. But at the time of said incidents, nobody gave a shit. It was wrong, but the past generation ignored it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think it is getting into witch era levels of you can accuse anyone and destroy them. And whether it be Warner Bros. Or Netflix, you can totally destroy someone with an accusation, 30 years in the past with Kevin Spacey, when he was 26, and had not yet made a movie.

So why does this guy bring it up now? Spacey had done nothing outside of broadway at the time.

He was not a power player that sleeping with would gain you noteriety at the time.

And how does it happen that at the age of 14 you are left alone at a party?

The whole Hollywood thing was messed up back then. It still is. David Bowie, Mick Jagger... and so had sex with people under the age of 18.

Elvis and Great Balls of Fire guy had relationships with people well under the age of 18.

This is not a defense. But at the time of said incidents, nobody gave a shit. It was wrong, but the past generation ignored it.

Click to shrink...

He brought it up now because everyone is speaking up now...

That's how being a victim of sexual assault/harassment/etc... usually works, no one wants to be the first because it's a terrifying world for a victim who speaks up and speaks up alone... so usually it takes a wave for some people to feel safe enough to speak up.

 

[Snack12367]

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

Click to shrink...

This. I do think we are starting to see a problem that was never taken into account when Innocent until proven guilty as a concept was introduced. Mass media. It becomes harder and harder to find an unbiased jury when details of the case could be in the news months in advance of the court date.

I think that there is a good argument that in any criminal investigation the media should not be able to report in it until a verdict has been reached.

 

[C4lukin]

He brought it up now because everyone is speaking up now...

That's how being a victim of sexual assault/harassment/etc... usually works, no one wants to be the first because it's a terrifying world for a victim who speaks up and speaks up alone... so usually it takes a wave for some people to feel safe enough to speak up.

Click to shrink...

The age thing is in appropriate. Beyond that is crimical, but outside of sexual advances based on the couple of articles I read, nothing really happened outside of Spacey 30 years ago propositioning this kid.

Which is totally a thing.

But at the the time it was 1986, at best Spacey was starting his first film. It did not come from a position of power, nor a pressure to give this kid a job as far as we know.

And how did this young boy get left at this party? Everyone had left, he was alone in a room, a drunken Spacey hit on him.

Seems consistent with the 80's but how does that even happen?

I want to think the best of Dpacey, so maybe I am over defending him.

It is a gross and despicable thing he did. And maybe in the coming months more people will come out to condemn him and reveal him to be a monster.

Ah, shit, I love the actor so much and want him to be innocent. And I would hope that everyone would take the accusations with a grain of salt.

But in general, I give these people the benefit of the doubt, but really I think they are probably guilty.

 

[H.I.V.E.]

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.

Click to shrink...

How about we don't examine it and instead argue what is being said, that way we don't have to grab pitchforks and insult each other.

OP Kevin Spacey did basically admit guilt. Otherwise no we shouldn't convict people based on allegations alone.

 

[Deleted member 835]

I believe the accuser until proved wrong. The accuser has to go through so much pain and suffering and be so brave to go public

 

[Jimnymebob]

I've personally always held the stance that when people accuse someone of something like the sexual harassment claims that have been coming to light recently, I should be impartial. Not to say I believe or don't believe either party, and I don't blame people for siding with the one making the accusations, but I'd sooner wait for more information to come out before immediately jumping to conclusions.

I feel like the prevalence of social media, and the fact you get news basically the second it breaks, is a big problem with this. Someone accuses someone of doing something, and it's instantly breaking news, usually with a sensational headline, with no time for the accused to do anything, and they are instantly vilified. I know it's impossible nowadays, but personally I believe it would be better for everyone if news only broke once people, namely those involved and authorities, had a solid grasp of the situation.

 

[Famassu]

I take it by a case by case basis.

If I see some Reddit-sourced random anonymous post claiming Kevin Spacey forced them to give him a blowjob or how their cousin was forced to take Kevin's it in the ass, yeah, I'm not really putting too much weight on those and demanding all of Kevin Spacey's past, present & future work to be destroyed.

Someone who publicly accuses someone and puts their reputation on the line, yes, I'm gonna go with "I'm gonna take accuser's words seriously and want to see something done about it". What that something is of course differs based on the case & what was done, but at the very least I'd want current employers to investigate the matter (past ones too if it seems appropriate for the situation). That does not mean I'm sharpening my pitchforks and lighting up my torches or demanding Spacey be given the death sentence. It means I'll expect action from certain parties (i.e. I'm happy to see Netflix being so swift in their actions with Spacey) and will probably hold off on any kind of support for that person & projects they are involved in if there doesn't seem to be any signs of the accusations being false.

 

[kristoffer]

So why does this guy bring it up now? Spacey had done nothing outside of broadway at the time.

He was not a power player that sleeping with would gain you noteriety at the time.

And how does it happen that at the age of 14 you are left alone at a party?

The whole Hollywood thing was messed up back then. It still is.

Click to shrink...

You know, the beginning of this post (unquoted) is a warning about how you can destroy people with just accusations. And the end of the post (unquoted) says you're not defending him. And yet, I read this portion that I've quoted here, and you're questioning the motives of the victim of a sexual assault, question the circumstances under which it happened which implicitly questions its credibility as a claim, and saying that everyone was doing it back then which excuses the perpetrator.

Don't.

 

[Angel DvA]

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

Click to shrink...

This, for people, you'll always be guilty.

 

[Spoopy]

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

Click to shrink...

one and done. but to elaborate, judgments can be made by people because we can look at patterns of history and see that sexual assault is very much an issue that has been an ongoing problem. it's not hard for us to see that this most likely is true so we make judgements. as far as this case, Spacey's less than agreeable response (that's being kind) does not help and casts further suspicion on him as a person incapable of righting his most likely true wrongs. the previous site we all migrated from ran into the same issue. the response of the accused speaks volumes about their guilt.

 

[Greenpaint]

If such a thing is happening, it's because people feel like "the system" can't be relied on to bring justice. If system can be relied upon, people will gladly leave things up to it. People of power will very rarely face any kind of consequences for their actions. When you have power over peoples very survival (money) then it's easy to silence anyone. And anyone who does speak up can be paid off in settlements. This in turn means that only a fraction of people who face injustices will ever get reparations.

As long as this is the case, peoples faith in justice system will be eroded. And "innocent until proven guilty" only works if the justice system can be relied upon to convict the guilty.

Mob justice is a horrible idea, in era of misinformation and propaganda, mob justice can easily be abused. Correct solution is to fix holes in our society instead of devolving to threats and violence. I can't provide any decent solutions though.

 

[fanboi]

I am sure as hell hope not.

As first post said there is difference between legal and public. But even for public I find it disconcerning that we find any accusation true and throw a cart blanch on it with almost no possibly to discuss it.

 

[necrosis]

Language evolves. Both of those terms are reasonable in this context.

Click to shrink...

they absolutely are not

both imply that all, or any, of the recent allegations made are false & there is nothing to suggest that. you can reserve judgement without completely dismissing the claims of victims

 

[Deleted member 43]

The reason we have created principles and ethics is to override our less useful impulses.

Click to shrink...

There is nothing unethical about forming an opinion based on the information you have.

There is something wrong with sticking with that opinion when you otherwise wouldn't out of stubbornness or pride.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Not at all. I'm allowed to have an opinion. I reject this notion that I'm not allowed to have one because of the legal process. I'm not involved in that.

 

[DrROBschiz]

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

Click to shrink...

came to post this

 

[DiipuSurotu]

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

Click to shrink...

This is bad, right?

Or is it a good thing?

 

[Invisible Cities]

Right now it's all been rich people who can afford to lose their livelihoods, but it's going to be interesting when it comes down market and regular people lose their jobs at first accusation.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Right now it's all been rich people who can afford to lose their livelihoods, but it's going to be interesting when it comes down market and regular people lose their jobs at first accusation.

Click to shrink...

Huh? Regular people lose their jobs all the time based on accusations now. It just doesn't make the news.

 

[PeskyToaster]

I feel like "the mob" has always been guilty until proven innocent which is why the establishing a neutral and impartial judicial system with the standard of innocent until proven guilty was such an important step for free society. It's a lofty goal that doesn't suit immediate action or revenge so it's hard for people to maintain it. At least in the case of Weinstein it was brought about by a couple lengthy and independent journalist investigations which is a bit more than just your normal baseless accusation. Still I think it's a good idea to get evidence beyond hearsay and witness testimony which I think is frighteningly malleable to a degree most people don't realize or don't want to think about. T

here was a reason that innocent until proven guilty was chosen for the court of law. Maybe the court of public opinion could learn a thing or two from the court of law?

 

[Invisible Cities]

Huh? Regular people lose their jobs all the time based on accusations now. It just doesn't make the news.

Click to shrink...

Not really. An accusation at a normal job just starts an HR investigation, which can be long. No one is immediately getting fired based on a single workplace accusation today. Companies have to cover their asses too, so they don't get sued by either the accuser or the accused.

 

[Famassu]

Not really. An accusation at a normal job just starts an HR investigation, which can be long. No one is immediately getting fired based on a single workplace accusation today. Companies have to cover their asses too, so they don't get sued by either the accuser or the accused.

Click to shrink...

I imagine the point was that sexual harassment accusations have been a thing outside of hyper visible public figures (with the power/influence to silence the victims) for a long time already and there has been repercussions for those accusations in cases where they've been proven true. Now we are just getting to the point where these previously untouchable people (well liked popular & rich actors, CEOs etc.) can't hide behind their stature & influence anymore and victims are becoming encouraged to not let their shitty treatment in the hands of such people slide any longer. Of course some of its effects will spread to more regular folks, but stop acting like this is some slippery slope and we are on the brink of masses & masses of men being falsely accused & out of job because all those imaginary false accusations will be believed.

 

[Noroi_Kisaragi]

The older you get, the more you realize "Innocent until proven guilty" has never been practiced in the court of public opinion

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Not really. An accusation at a normal job just starts an HR investigation, which can be long. No one is immediately getting fired based on a single workplace accusation today. Companies have to cover their asses too, so they don't get sued by either the accuser or the accused.

Click to shrink...

Coworker once grabbed my former boss's ass. Dude was escorted out by security 30 minutes later. So it depends. Not every acting career is immediately ruined by accusations either.

 

[Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric]

The problem is when that court of public opinion bleeds into the actual court and taints the jury pool before the trial even begins.


The presumption of guilt, coupled with the tendency for the media to try some of these higher profile cases on their various TV shows and blogs, can have serious repercussions in those eventual trials.


For example, I always assumed Scott Peterson was guilty of killing his wife. The media circus around that event was nothing less than a dogpile of various "experts" and talking heads pretty much proclaiming this man guilty even before the trial began. Years later, that A&E multi-part series aired and I discovered just how much evidence to the contrary I had never been privy to and now I have serious doubts about his guilt. Actually, I'm largely convinced Peterson is sitting on death row because he cheated on his wife and that was enough for people to decide cheating equates a capacity to kill.


It's fucking scary how stupid the public is and how easily swayed they are by their passions rather than by logic, common sense and evidence.

 

[Zelas]

As a black male living in the US, I fucking hope not.

I don't think it shifted, it's just that certains practices were considered normal before are considered as they are, disgusting.

I think that society by large is reaching a greater emphasis with women than before.

Also, society used to be really good for protecting abuser with the false excuse of "private matter".

I really think that everybody is innocent until proven guilty, but this goes also for the accuser. The accuser is not to be called a liar or to be doubted until being debunked. It's why my stance is to focus on the victim.

Of course, in cases of multiples accusation from a lot of people, or a semi-justification/loosy public defense of the crime, it's normal that the public eye will condemn the accused.

Also, since the underlying subject is sexual assault, we have every reason to take those kind of accusation with the seriousness they deserve, since almost every woman is victim of those at least once in their lives, and that it's actually very rare that they speak about publicly, because of rape culture.

People using the "innocent until proved guilty" don't use the same kind of line of defense with pedophilia for instance, because i think that many men are actually afraid that their past conduct could be someday called "sexual assault". It's why we're seeing so many people defending acts which are legally and obviously sexual assault, as "seduction" or "trying to make a move".

Why are we so creepy. Damn.

Click to shrink...

This isn't entirely directed at you but your posts harbor the same sentiments I'm seeing in a lot of places.

People have got to stop making these sweeping generalizations. It's not cool when it comes to racial groups and it hasn't been cool when talking about women either so why do it with men. I don't use guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion because life is much more complicated than what witch hunts allow for. And life carries baggage that is often statistically validated in certain instances (rampant racism against black males like me).

I'm not concerned one bit that my past or current behavior will put me in these situations, I'm concerned about what modern life has presented black men time and time again. Some say that sexual assaults aren't being reported enough (I agree) but I'm also seeing instances where sexual assault allegations are disproportionately affecting people of color.I won't criticize you for your own personal guidance but I criticize the belief that it's not ok for others to want to take their time to parse each instance uniquely when it comes to allegations.

Also your pedophilia comparison is a bad comparison. Most pedophilia allegations are nothing like current topics of the day. They're much more straightforward and aren't tied to hundreds of years of institutional racism. News of individuals involved with pedophilia allegations are usually quickly accompanied by police statements talking about all of the proof of the crime they have. Even with situations where police aren't involved, Catholic priest allegations for example, one accusation is quickly followed by multiple accusers (which is all it takes to convince me to question the accused). Plus the Catholic church being a single entity with a history of hypocrisy and disingenuousness on the issue always plays a role as well. Unless we're talking only about the Hollywood situation, where its clear Hollywood itself has an issue, and most of the accused are facing multiple accusations, sexual assault remain the much more complicated issue.

Men need to be every bit as afraid of the consequences of sexual assault of women as they are of accusations of child abuse. Reason and balance will come, but right now we need to focus on tearing down rape culture.

Click to shrink...

At what cost? Do you know what price is being paid? Are you willing to tell other groups that it's worth it to have them suffer while you exploit, marginalize, or watch silently, but hopefully, from the sidelines?

This mentality has always been the main cause for my supposedly questionable stance. People telling minorities to be quiet while they use us as a stepping stone to increase their own standing. Only for us to be forgotten time and time again. Whether its another minority group, corporations, or some politician, it keeps happening. And I'm seeing elements of it now among SOME of those who are fighting to have sexual assault be taken seriously. I hate having to admit that I don't know how to address it (what hope did I even have, its been happening long before I was even born) but I know it makes me uncomfortable. But hopefully it's this feeling that will help make it clear why I, and maybe others, take issue with the witch hunt mentality. Not because I'm merely a man concerned about my own behavior getting me in trouble.