7 ms·

Are we to accept all allegations levelled against others as unimpeachable truth by default? If so, what legitimate means do the accused have to clear their name

Are we to accept all allegations levelled against others as unimpeachable truth by default? If so, what legitimate means do the accused have to clear their names? You are calling a man a "rapist" solely on the basis of allegations. Presume innocence.

Certhas 10y ago
No we shouldn't, but has he charged the women who have come forward with slander? If not why not? Should we believe his denials? Shouldn't we presume the women to be innocent of slander? Presumption of innocence is a red herring. It's a legal principle, not an ethical principle. In real, messy situations without sufficient evidence or will to overcome the "legal" presumption of innocence, we are forced to make heuristic decisions (and inaction/ignoring the allegations is such a decision). THe decision can be more than black and white, too. For example that Applebaum is not rapist, and maybe hasn't done anything outright illegal, but has probably exhibited ethically questionable behaviour that would more than sufficient grounds for not wanting him associated with your project. For a thorough overview that I found persuasive: http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-sexual-abuse-allegations http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-sexua... People in the movement describe him as someone who likes to experiment with sex. As one who usually gets what he wants. "I’ve also seen him be inconsiderate of other people’s feelings," said one person who knows him well, "or be overly persistent about asking for permission to do things other people didn’t want to do." But, he added, Mr. Appelbaum asks for permission. === As an aside: Presumption of innocence is not how society works. Say a friend tells you that a particular plumber in your village cheated him out of some money, so you should avoid that plumber, would you disregard the advice because your friend didn't secure a conviction against the plumber? If you're hiring and a trusted friend tells you that XYZ was harassing women at his last job, nothing outright illegal, but definitely toxic atmosphere, would you disregard that advice because of a presumption of innocence? So the real question isn't presumption of innocence, but the trustworthiness of (sometimes anonymous) sources. That's a hard judgement call to make. People who parade "presumption of innocence" around instead of thinking about that judgement call essentially advocate never trusting any allegations of improper behaviour. Tellingly I have seen that fallacy used overwhelmingly when it comes to sexual misbehaviour. Calling it victim blaming misses the point as well of course, because that presumes that the accuser is a victim. Anyone have a good term for that?
- GunlogAlm 10y ago
  > Tellingly I have seen that fallacy used overwhelmingly when it comes to sexual misbehaviour. This is because unlike most other categories of criminal conduct, allegations of sexual misconduct are particularly damaging to the accused, owing to the enormity of the crime and its effects on genuine victims. We might expect, then, to require a higher quality or quantity of evidence versus 'lesser crimes', no? But this isn't the case. If somebody in the public sphere is accused of shoplifting, f.i., you would hear many a person declare said somebody "innocent until proven guilty!". In the case of sexual assault and rape, however, there exists a very loud minority that appear to hold we should accept all allegations without reservation – or, at least, those we deem "trustworthy" based on a vague nothingness. After all, if they were a friend of yours, you would take their word for it. Right? Regardless, I am not in fact saying we should necessarily require evidence before we believe any allegation. I am more concerned with how we communicate our beliefs, especially in public. I might happen to believe Appelbaum's accusers are telling the truth, but it's decidedly not okay to assert that he is "a rapist" on the basis of nothing. People like to turn rape accusations into a little game of odds, but at the end of the discussion the fact remains: anybody can accuse anyone of anything.
vkou 10y ago
If your standard for private individuals censuring someone is unimpeachable truth of wrongdoing, there is pretty much no way for that standard to be met. Private individuals can't conduct criminal investigations, compel testimony, or do any of the things that make it possible for courts to do their jobs. (And in the case of sexual assault, courts are terrible at punishing the guilty.) Innocent until proven guilty is a thing because the cost of a wrong criminal conviction are absolutely devastating to an innocent person. In a civil situation, the cost of not censuring a sexual predator is absolutely devastating for the people hurt by them. The converse cost of a wrong censure are much lower then they are in the criminal case. The fact of the matter is, given how rare rape accusations are, if one person accuses another of rape, you can think of it as a tossup. If ten people accuse one person of rape, odds are much better then 50/50 that they are a rapist. 50/50 odds shouldn't put someone in jail, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to ever see that person as part of my community. The personal cost of this to them is nothing, compared to, say, a felony and a decade in state prison.
- __s 10y ago
  I've directly known 2 people whom I believe were falsely accused of rape. Might be my region; southern Ontario. Also one did go as far as getting thrown out of court (in favor of the presumably falsely accused)
  - vkou 10y ago
    Were they accused by multiple people, independently? Why was the case thrown out?
    - __s 10y ago
      Not by multiple people, true. & both are completely unrelated people. Case was thrown out because the girl's story was completely inconsistent & lacked any evidence To be clear, I'm not responding about Applebaum. I don't know much about the situation, but yes, multiple accusations does imply much more than a single case. I don't know how much opportunity there was for collusion. I was responding to your assertion that rape accusation is rare. Similarly many, including myself, think Assange was victim to a smear campaign. Sex gets muddy, especially if alcohol is involved

Certhas 10y ago

No we shouldn't, but has he charged the women who have come forward with slander? If not why not? Should we believe his denials? Shouldn't we presume the women to be innocent of slander? Presumption of innocence is a red herring. It's a legal principle, not an ethical principle. In real, messy situations without sufficient evidence or will to overcome the "legal" presumption of innocence, we are forced to make heuristic decisions (and inaction/ignoring the allegations is such a decision). THe decision can be more than black and white, too. For example that Applebaum is not rapist, and maybe hasn't done anything outright illegal, but has probably exhibited ethically questionable behaviour that would more than sufficient grounds for not wanting him associated with your project. For a thorough overview that I found persuasive: http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-sexual-abuse-allegations http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-sexua... People in the movement describe him as someone who likes to experiment with sex. As one who usually gets what he wants. "I’ve also seen him be inconsiderate of other people’s feelings," said one person who knows him well, "or be overly persistent about asking for permission to do things other people didn’t want to do." But, he added, Mr. Appelbaum asks for permission. === As an aside: Presumption of innocence is not how society works. Say a friend tells you that a particular plumber in your village cheated him out of some money, so you should avoid that plumber, would you disregard the advice because your friend didn't secure a conviction against the plumber? If you're hiring and a trusted friend tells you that XYZ was harassing women at his last job, nothing outright illegal, but definitely toxic atmosphere, would you disregard that advice because of a presumption of innocence? So the real question isn't presumption of innocence, but the trustworthiness of (sometimes anonymous) sources. That's a hard judgement call to make. People who parade "presumption of innocence" around instead of thinking about that judgement call essentially advocate never trusting any allegations of improper behaviour. Tellingly I have seen that fallacy used overwhelmingly when it comes to sexual misbehaviour. Calling it victim blaming misses the point as well of course, because that presumes that the accuser is a victim. Anyone have a good term for that?

GunlogAlm 10y ago
> Tellingly I have seen that fallacy used overwhelmingly when it comes to sexual misbehaviour. This is because unlike most other categories of criminal conduct, allegations of sexual misconduct are particularly damaging to the accused, owing to the enormity of the crime and its effects on genuine victims. We might expect, then, to require a higher quality or quantity of evidence versus 'lesser crimes', no? But this isn't the case. If somebody in the public sphere is accused of shoplifting, f.i., you would hear many a person declare said somebody "innocent until proven guilty!". In the case of sexual assault and rape, however, there exists a very loud minority that appear to hold we should accept all allegations without reservation – or, at least, those we deem "trustworthy" based on a vague nothingness. After all, if they were a friend of yours, you would take their word for it. Right? Regardless, I am not in fact saying we should necessarily require evidence before we believe any allegation. I am more concerned with how we communicate our beliefs, especially in public. I might happen to believe Appelbaum's accusers are telling the truth, but it's decidedly not okay to assert that he is "a rapist" on the basis of nothing. People like to turn rape accusations into a little game of odds, but at the end of the discussion the fact remains: anybody can accuse anyone of anything.

vkou 10y ago

If your standard for private individuals censuring someone is unimpeachable truth of wrongdoing, there is pretty much no way for that standard to be met. Private individuals can't conduct criminal investigations, compel testimony, or do any of the things that make it possible for courts to do their jobs. (And in the case of sexual assault, courts are terrible at punishing the guilty.) Innocent until proven guilty is a thing because the cost of a wrong criminal conviction are absolutely devastating to an innocent person. In a civil situation, the cost of not censuring a sexual predator is absolutely devastating for the people hurt by them. The converse cost of a wrong censure are much lower then they are in the criminal case. The fact of the matter is, given how rare rape accusations are, if one person accuses another of rape, you can think of it as a tossup. If ten people accuse one person of rape, odds are much better then 50/50 that they are a rapist. 50/50 odds shouldn't put someone in jail, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to ever see that person as part of my community. The personal cost of this to them is nothing, compared to, say, a felony and a decade in state prison.

__s 10y ago
I've directly known 2 people whom I believe were falsely accused of rape. Might be my region; southern Ontario. Also one did go as far as getting thrown out of court (in favor of the presumably falsely accused)
- vkou 10y ago
  Were they accused by multiple people, independently? Why was the case thrown out?
  - __s 10y ago
    Not by multiple people, true. & both are completely unrelated people. Case was thrown out because the girl's story was completely inconsistent & lacked any evidence To be clear, I'm not responding about Applebaum. I don't know much about the situation, but yes, multiple accusations does imply much more than a single case. I don't know how much opportunity there was for collusion. I was responding to your assertion that rape accusation is rare. Similarly many, including myself, think Assange was victim to a smear campaign. Sex gets muddy, especially if alcohol is involved