4 ms·

There's a weak undercurrent of condescension in the post (I've seen worse from Model View Culture); you may be picking up on that. I'm more interested in the u

There's a weak undercurrent of condescension in the post (I've seen worse from Model View Culture); you may be picking up on that. I'm more interested in the un(der)examined assertion that, when it comes to accusations of sexual misconduct, the accused should have a presumption of guilt. Have there been any published arguments in favor of this?

vkou 10y ago
It's not a presumption of guilt, but for social censure, the bar should be far, far, far lower then it is in a court of law. If anyone's been following, for instance, the Jian Ghomeshi trial, any reasonable person should conclude that he is quite probably a rapist, and is most definitely a predator. (As he himself admitted in the Kathryn Borel trial). However, the jury failed to conclude that he is a rapist beyond reasonable doubt. Sending someone to jail when their odds of being guilty are say 50%, or even 75% is unconscionable (Although if you don't have a good lawyer, that most can most certainly happen). On the other hand, say, not banning that same person from your conference is grossly negligent. Additionally, in many environments, the consequences for reporting that you were a victim of sexual harassment are far more serious then for being an actual perpetrator of sexual harassment. By default, we bias ourselves to favour attackers.
stale2002 10y ago
If you see something happen yourself, then you should call it out. You just saw them do something so you know they are guilty (or maybe they just did something to you!), so it is your responsibility to call them out immediately. Don't let it slide or wait for later or wait for the police. Right then, right there, do something. If people do this as often as they see things happen, no matter how big or how small, then the problem people would soon become obvious to everyone. Each individual can decide for themselves who to believe, based on the full availability of the evidence, that is now right in the open for everyone to see.
spriggan3 10y ago
> the accused should have a presumption of guilt That may be how social media work, that's absolutely not how justice should work. Anybody can be accused of sexual misconduct on social media. It's not justice when one can't defend himself.
- vkou 10y ago
  It's not justice when we put the victim on trial (As we do in most rape cases), but we do it anyway.
  - hueving 10y ago
    So you are implying that makes it okay to assume everyone accused is guilty for all intents and purposes?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I feel like lots of people here are patting each other on the back about a snipey "innocent until proven guilty" argument they've derived by cutting one of this post's sentences in half. No, this post does not say it's "okay to assume everyone accused is guilty for all intents and purposes".
      - PavlovsCat 10y ago
        No, those two comments are simply asking. Which is fair enough, seeing how the comment doesn't say why that is "not justice", or any different from other witnesses/victims in other trials getting asked questions.
  - guitarbill 10y ago
    This is flat out wrong. In the US/EU, you can't be put on trial for being a rape victim. What offence would that be? Complete hyperbole.
    - vkou 10y ago
      Read any rape trial transcript, or even an account of someone who took their assault to trial. Read the questions asked the victim. They are invasive and degrading, and they are intended to paint them as scandalous, lying, drunk, promiscuous skank. Your personal and public credibility will be put under intense scrutiny. The accused then takes the stand, and insists that yes, you clearly consented to being assaulted at 2 am behind a dumpster, when you were too drunk to speak. And if, heaven forbid, the case falls apart, you'll likely be sued right back for slander, damaging your attacker's public image, loss of income, etc. That's the defense's job in an adversarial legal system. That doesn't make in any better for victims.
SkyMarshal 10y ago
She's saying that if word of harassing behavior bubbles to the surface, you should not ignore it but do the due diligence and see if there's a pattern of behavior there, not prosecuting the accused based on a single accusation. She also makes a distinction between accidental behavior and intentional/predatory/patterned behavior.
- adiabatty 10y ago
  But she's not admitting the possibility of false accusation. That troubles me.
  - vkou 10y ago
    A very small (~1%) number of people are responsible for the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment. Most harassers harass many, many victims, before they are called out on it. This means that if you are actually doing harassment, your odds of getting called out on any particular interaction are low. This also means that if you aren't actually doing any harassment, your odds of being falsely accused are even lower. While you're not more likely to be hit by a bus on the way to work, it's not that far off. Getting falsely accused by more then one person (Which is what the article points out as the big red warning sign) would be like winning the lottery. It's best not to structure your policies about landing 6 for 6 on the 6/49.

vkou 10y ago

It's not a presumption of guilt, but for social censure, the bar should be far, far, far lower then it is in a court of law. If anyone's been following, for instance, the Jian Ghomeshi trial, any reasonable person should conclude that he is quite probably a rapist, and is most definitely a predator. (As he himself admitted in the Kathryn Borel trial). However, the jury failed to conclude that he is a rapist beyond reasonable doubt. Sending someone to jail when their odds of being guilty are say 50%, or even 75% is unconscionable (Although if you don't have a good lawyer, that most can most certainly happen). On the other hand, say, not banning that same person from your conference is grossly negligent. Additionally, in many environments, the consequences for reporting that you were a victim of sexual harassment are far more serious then for being an actual perpetrator of sexual harassment. By default, we bias ourselves to favour attackers.

stale2002 10y ago

If you see something happen yourself, then you should call it out. You just saw them do something so you know they are guilty (or maybe they just did something to you!), so it is your responsibility to call them out immediately. Don't let it slide or wait for later or wait for the police. Right then, right there, do something. If people do this as often as they see things happen, no matter how big or how small, then the problem people would soon become obvious to everyone. Each individual can decide for themselves who to believe, based on the full availability of the evidence, that is now right in the open for everyone to see.

spriggan3 10y ago

> the accused should have a presumption of guilt That may be how social media work, that's absolutely not how justice should work. Anybody can be accused of sexual misconduct on social media. It's not justice when one can't defend himself.

vkou 10y ago
It's not justice when we put the victim on trial (As we do in most rape cases), but we do it anyway.
- hueving 10y ago
  So you are implying that makes it okay to assume everyone accused is guilty for all intents and purposes?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I feel like lots of people here are patting each other on the back about a snipey "innocent until proven guilty" argument they've derived by cutting one of this post's sentences in half. No, this post does not say it's "okay to assume everyone accused is guilty for all intents and purposes".
    - PavlovsCat 10y ago
      No, those two comments are simply asking. Which is fair enough, seeing how the comment doesn't say why that is "not justice", or any different from other witnesses/victims in other trials getting asked questions.
- guitarbill 10y ago
  This is flat out wrong. In the US/EU, you can't be put on trial for being a rape victim. What offence would that be? Complete hyperbole.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Read any rape trial transcript, or even an account of someone who took their assault to trial. Read the questions asked the victim. They are invasive and degrading, and they are intended to paint them as scandalous, lying, drunk, promiscuous skank. Your personal and public credibility will be put under intense scrutiny. The accused then takes the stand, and insists that yes, you clearly consented to being assaulted at 2 am behind a dumpster, when you were too drunk to speak. And if, heaven forbid, the case falls apart, you'll likely be sued right back for slander, damaging your attacker's public image, loss of income, etc. That's the defense's job in an adversarial legal system. That doesn't make in any better for victims.

SkyMarshal 10y ago

She's saying that if word of harassing behavior bubbles to the surface, you should not ignore it but do the due diligence and see if there's a pattern of behavior there, not prosecuting the accused based on a single accusation. She also makes a distinction between accidental behavior and intentional/predatory/patterned behavior.

adiabatty 10y ago
But she's not admitting the possibility of false accusation. That troubles me.
- vkou 10y ago
  A very small (~1%) number of people are responsible for the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment. Most harassers harass many, many victims, before they are called out on it. This means that if you are actually doing harassment, your odds of getting called out on any particular interaction are low. This also means that if you aren't actually doing any harassment, your odds of being falsely accused are even lower. While you're not more likely to be hit by a bus on the way to work, it's not that far off. Getting falsely accused by more then one person (Which is what the article points out as the big red warning sign) would be like winning the lottery. It's best not to structure your policies about landing 6 for 6 on the 6/49.