5 ms·

Most people that report harassment are taking a big career risk (and if they go public like Mrs. Fowler did, inviting abuse from Internet mobs) by doing so, so

Most people that report harassment are taking a big career risk (and if they go public like Mrs. Fowler did, inviting abuse from Internet mobs) by doing so, so yes, I'm going to default to believing people that report harassment unless I can find credible evidence it didn't happen.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dixie_land 9y ago
I'm going to default to believing people that report harassment unless I can find credible evidence it didn't happen. I hope to God you don't show up for jury duties.
- odonnellryan 9y ago
  There are multiple ways to interpret the phrase "I believe you."
  - a_imho 9y ago
    Please elaborate, I'm not a native speaker and I don't see how it can be interpreted differently in this context.
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      I'm a native speaker and I don't think there are multiple interpretations.
      - solipsism 9y ago
        The fact that the phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt" exists should make it clear that there after different degrees of belief.
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        Saying "I believe you" means "I believe what you said is true". There are no interpretations that are contrary to that. Yes, you can modulate the strength of your belief but they're all beliefs that the statement is true. The great-grandparent comment (the one whose meaning this discussion was about) was implying something other than belief in the truth of the statement.
      - odonnellryan 9y ago
        Really? US? "I believe you" can mean you believe what the person is saying WITHOUT it meaning you take it to be 100% factual. In this circumstance, it can mean you believe them (as in, trust them) but you're not "convicting" anyone of anything. But you ARE giving them the comfort of "trust."
        hueving 9y ago
        When it comes to an accusation, you can't simultaneously believe the victim and clear the defendant of guilt.
        DanBC 9y ago
        Of course you can. You can believe the victim while saying that the evidence doesn't meet whatever bar you set - in criminal matters that would be "beyond all reasonable doubt". It's fine for people to say "I think he did it, but the prosecution didn't prove it, and so I found him not guilty."
        odonnellryan 9y ago
        100% on-point, but I'd caution about bringing judgement into these matters. Believing a colleague when they come to you with ANY complaint does not mean you're going to pass judgement, or you even have to. It means listening and doing that in a way that does not discourage future complaints.
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        > Believing a colleague when they come to you with ANY complaint does not mean you're going to pass judgement, or you even have to. It means listening and doing that in a way that does not discourage future complaints. Your attitude towards them -- listening etc -- is a completely orthogonal matter to whether you believe in the truth of their claims. There seems to be this wishy-washy notion of "belief" that's causing confusion in this thread, where "believing" is equated to "not being judgemental".
        9y ago
    - odonnellryan 9y ago
      It's just contextual. It can mean: "I believe what you're saying, so I will follow up." Or, "I believe what you're saying, so I will take immediate action on those persons."
    - binocarlos 9y ago
      An example (from a case I was involved as a witness in only last week). A jury must be 100% confident that the evidence presented confirms their beliefs. The judge will say "do not decide based on if you believe it happened but instead on the evidence presented". There a world where the jury can believe it happened (and deliberate for 4.5 hours) but still come out with not guilty because the physical evidence is not there. In historical sexual abuse cases (of which this was one) - the CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service here in the UK) will not take on the case if they did not think there was a good chance of winning and yet the only real evidence here was witness testimony and no forensics. It didn't matter that the jury obviously believed it happened - they did their job and realised that was only an opinion and not backed by evidence.
- kevinburke 9y ago
  Different standards should and do apply in criminal trials ("innocent until proven guilty", "beyond a reasonable doubt"), civil trials ("preponderance of the evidence"), and the workplace, where anything goes.
  - camelite 9y ago
    Should "anything go" in the workplace? Your phrasing doesn't make it clear if that's what you believe.
    - kevinburke 9y ago
      I am saying employment is at will (in most US tech contracts) and an employer can terminate your contract for any reason. "Anything goes" = there's no set standards of proof
      - camelite 9y ago
        OK. Should "anything go", or is there a limit to how low the burden of proof should go?
      - jamesrcole 9y ago
        That is not legally the case in at least some countries.
      - dixie_land 9y ago
        IANAL but my understanding is that employer can terminate you for no reason (as in not giving a reason). But if an employer fires you for cause and that cause is unfounded they can be sued for wrongful termination.
        kevinburke 9y ago
        This handy list suggests you have a claim if you report you were harassed and your company fires you (retaliation), but not if you are fired after someone falsely accuses you of harassment. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-have-wrongful-termination-claim-california.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-have-wrongful-te...
hyperdunc 9y ago
The trust of people like yourself is definitely going to be abused by people who want to smear others.
- blackrose 9y ago
  And trusting people to have free speech is definitely going to be abused by people who want to say controversial things. And trusting people to use encryption is definitely going to be abused by criminals who want to commit crimes. And trusting people to own kitchen knives is definitely going to be abused by people who want to stab others. Yes, we can all make factually true, but totally irrelevant arguments that don't change anything.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    You're talking about the rights of individuals. A person has the right to free speech and a person has the right not to be harassed. A person does not have the right to be trusted, but can expect to be taken seriously on a claim of harassment if they have earned trust or if they provide evidence to back up the allegation.
- kevinburke 9y ago
  This suggests that trust isn't or hasn't been abused by harassers at places like Uber. There, Uber HR trusted harassers when they said "I didn't do that," or they just didn't care.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    It is not up to the alleged harassers to prove they did not harass.
zakk 9y ago
Goodbye innocent until proven guilty...
- netheril96 9y ago
  That is only for criminal trials. In civil trials you only need preponderance of evidence.
  - zakk 9y ago
    You are mistaking two different aspects. You can be declared guilty by preponderance of evidence, of course, but still you are innocent until proven guilty.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ClassyJacket 9y ago
How on Earth can someone possibly provide evidence a crime didn't happen?
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  I believe such evidence would be the lack thereof which would imply no crime occurred.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  in a criminal trial the most common form would be an alibi, which is proof that the accused was somewhere else and not in the place the crime occurred at the time the crime occurred.
Flenser 9y ago
I'm going to default to believing people that report harassment unless I can find credible evidence it didn't happen. The UK police had to back off from a similar policy that the after high profile investigations that were dropped with no criminal charges being made. They now take complaints seriously and try to keep the confidence of the complainant but don't start off with unconditional belief from the outset whilst still proceeding, at first, on the basis that the allegation is truthful but testing the accuracy of the allegations and the evidence with an open mind.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dixie_land 9y ago

I'm going to default to believing people that report harassment unless I can find credible evidence it didn't happen. I hope to God you don't show up for jury duties.

odonnellryan 9y ago
There are multiple ways to interpret the phrase "I believe you."
- a_imho 9y ago
  Please elaborate, I'm not a native speaker and I don't see how it can be interpreted differently in this context.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    I'm a native speaker and I don't think there are multiple interpretations.
    - solipsism 9y ago
      The fact that the phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt" exists should make it clear that there after different degrees of belief.
      - jamesrcole 9y ago
        Saying "I believe you" means "I believe what you said is true". There are no interpretations that are contrary to that. Yes, you can modulate the strength of your belief but they're all beliefs that the statement is true. The great-grandparent comment (the one whose meaning this discussion was about) was implying something other than belief in the truth of the statement.
    - odonnellryan 9y ago
      Really? US? "I believe you" can mean you believe what the person is saying WITHOUT it meaning you take it to be 100% factual. In this circumstance, it can mean you believe them (as in, trust them) but you're not "convicting" anyone of anything. But you ARE giving them the comfort of "trust."
      - hueving 9y ago
        When it comes to an accusation, you can't simultaneously believe the victim and clear the defendant of guilt.
        DanBC 9y ago
        Of course you can. You can believe the victim while saying that the evidence doesn't meet whatever bar you set - in criminal matters that would be "beyond all reasonable doubt". It's fine for people to say "I think he did it, but the prosecution didn't prove it, and so I found him not guilty."
        odonnellryan 9y ago
        100% on-point, but I'd caution about bringing judgement into these matters. Believing a colleague when they come to you with ANY complaint does not mean you're going to pass judgement, or you even have to. It means listening and doing that in a way that does not discourage future complaints.
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        > Believing a colleague when they come to you with ANY complaint does not mean you're going to pass judgement, or you even have to. It means listening and doing that in a way that does not discourage future complaints. Your attitude towards them -- listening etc -- is a completely orthogonal matter to whether you believe in the truth of their claims. There seems to be this wishy-washy notion of "belief" that's causing confusion in this thread, where "believing" is equated to "not being judgemental".
        9y ago
  - odonnellryan 9y ago
    It's just contextual. It can mean: "I believe what you're saying, so I will follow up." Or, "I believe what you're saying, so I will take immediate action on those persons."
  - binocarlos 9y ago
    An example (from a case I was involved as a witness in only last week). A jury must be 100% confident that the evidence presented confirms their beliefs. The judge will say "do not decide based on if you believe it happened but instead on the evidence presented". There a world where the jury can believe it happened (and deliberate for 4.5 hours) but still come out with not guilty because the physical evidence is not there. In historical sexual abuse cases (of which this was one) - the CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service here in the UK) will not take on the case if they did not think there was a good chance of winning and yet the only real evidence here was witness testimony and no forensics. It didn't matter that the jury obviously believed it happened - they did their job and realised that was only an opinion and not backed by evidence.
kevinburke 9y ago
Different standards should and do apply in criminal trials ("innocent until proven guilty", "beyond a reasonable doubt"), civil trials ("preponderance of the evidence"), and the workplace, where anything goes.
- camelite 9y ago
  Should "anything go" in the workplace? Your phrasing doesn't make it clear if that's what you believe.
  - kevinburke 9y ago
    I am saying employment is at will (in most US tech contracts) and an employer can terminate your contract for any reason. "Anything goes" = there's no set standards of proof
    - camelite 9y ago
      OK. Should "anything go", or is there a limit to how low the burden of proof should go?
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      That is not legally the case in at least some countries.
    - dixie_land 9y ago
      IANAL but my understanding is that employer can terminate you for no reason (as in not giving a reason). But if an employer fires you for cause and that cause is unfounded they can be sued for wrongful termination.
      - kevinburke 9y ago
        This handy list suggests you have a claim if you report you were harassed and your company fires you (retaliation), but not if you are fired after someone falsely accuses you of harassment. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-have-wrongful-termination-claim-california.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-have-wrongful-te...

hyperdunc 9y ago

The trust of people like yourself is definitely going to be abused by people who want to smear others.

blackrose 9y ago
And trusting people to have free speech is definitely going to be abused by people who want to say controversial things. And trusting people to use encryption is definitely going to be abused by criminals who want to commit crimes. And trusting people to own kitchen knives is definitely going to be abused by people who want to stab others. Yes, we can all make factually true, but totally irrelevant arguments that don't change anything.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  You're talking about the rights of individuals. A person has the right to free speech and a person has the right not to be harassed. A person does not have the right to be trusted, but can expect to be taken seriously on a claim of harassment if they have earned trust or if they provide evidence to back up the allegation.
kevinburke 9y ago
This suggests that trust isn't or hasn't been abused by harassers at places like Uber. There, Uber HR trusted harassers when they said "I didn't do that," or they just didn't care.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  It is not up to the alleged harassers to prove they did not harass.

zakk 9y ago

Goodbye innocent until proven guilty...

netheril96 9y ago
That is only for criminal trials. In civil trials you only need preponderance of evidence.
- zakk 9y ago
  You are mistaking two different aspects. You can be declared guilty by preponderance of evidence, of course, but still you are innocent until proven guilty.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ClassyJacket 9y ago

How on Earth can someone possibly provide evidence a crime didn't happen?

24gttghh 9y ago
I believe such evidence would be the lack thereof which would imply no crime occurred.
metaphorm 9y ago
in a criminal trial the most common form would be an alibi, which is proof that the accused was somewhere else and not in the place the crime occurred at the time the crime occurred.

Flenser 9y ago

I'm going to default to believing people that report harassment unless I can find credible evidence it didn't happen. The UK police had to back off from a similar policy that the after high profile investigations that were dropped with no criminal charges being made. They now take complaints seriously and try to keep the confidence of the complainant but don't start off with unconditional belief from the outset whilst still proceeding, at first, on the basis that the allegation is truthful but testing the accuracy of the allegations and the evidence with an open mind.