5 ms·

Careful with that kind if talk here. In this kind of social political climate logic does not always prevail. Just go look at some past HN threads regarding sexu

Careful with that kind if talk here. In this kind of social political climate logic does not always prevail. Just go look at some past HN threads regarding sexual harassment. The sheer number of people who react emotionally to allegations of sexual harassment is truly astounding. All rationality goes out the window with men throwing themselves over each other to proclaim "I BELIEVE YOU" instead of asking for the least bit of corroborating evidence.

adjkant 9y ago
This is a huge straw man if I've ever seen one (and present in many other posts on this thread). To act as if there isn't any logic in the opposing side isn't going to get anywhere. Because of the very nature of sexual assault, providing evidence up to the standards of the US criminal legal system is very hard to do. It likely means that more harassers get off and very few get wrongful sentences. The logic in supporting a standard that requires less than the US criminal legal system currently is that it will help put away many more guilty people and put away few/none non-guilty people given the rarity of false accusations with evidence that would say, pass a 50/50 guilt test. The lack of criminal recourse leads to a court of public opinion being the victim's only option often. The court of public opinion is far from fair, which leads back to the idea of working on the criminal recourse options to allow for more victims to actually report and fix this. You can disagree with some of the premises of that argument, but it's a valid one (philosophically speaking). In this case, someone was wrongly accused, and even under a 50/50 system, it's clear the charges would not go through, and yes obviously the pre-meditated wrongful accuser should face a punishment. I think some jail time for a pre-meditated false accusation is more than fair. But a discussion and a call for a different legal standard given the uniqueness of these types of cases is perfectly logical. Instead of complaining about the public lynch mob and blaming the mass of people who likely won't stop, discuss and focus on the problems that prevent it. Like actually getting rape kits tested, creating more avenues for sexual assault reporting via a calmer system than anonymous blog posts, etc.
- int_19h 9y ago
  > and put away few/none non-guilty people given the rarity of false accusations with evidence that would say, pass a 50/50 guilt test. We're already putting away non-guilty people, and we know about it - check out Innocence Project some time. So lowering those standards is guaranteed to increase that number. A huge problem is that in US, the prosecutors have a lot of incentives to pursue convictions regardless of actual guilt or innocence. If you give them a tool to convict more people, they will use it, because more convictions look good on their resume. And in many cases, the minority demographics are the ones disproportionally targeted. So, until the problem with prosecutorial misconduct is fixed, I don't think it's the right time to talk about making it easier to imprison people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/21/why-do-prosecutors-go-after-innocent-people/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/21/... https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B007FA38KW/ https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B007FA38KW/
- dahauns 9y ago
  >You can disagree with some of the premises of that argument, but it's a valid one (philosophically speaking). Philosophically speaking, If I reject some of the premises, this would be a classic ex falso quodlibet, so - unless I subscribe to the use of paraconsistent logic - no, it would actually not be valid. I fully agree that everything should be done to make reporting crimes and presenting evidence as easy as possible and to root out problems preventing this. But: Loosening the standards of presumption of innocence, one of the cornerstone achievements of human rights, can never be part of this. Especially in the age of social media. Everything else is a slippery slope (and one that has been written about in every concievable context on thousands of pages over the centuries). It's easy to say "it will help put away many more guilty people" if you simply redefine what it means to be guilty to be slightly more likely than a coin toss (or what do you mean by "pass a 50/50 guilt test"?).
  - adjkant 9y ago
    You aren't working with a philosophical definition of valid then. http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ An argument can still be valid with false premises. The point of using this definition is to say that if person A disagrees with the premises and person B agrees with them, that is the source of your difference, not a lack of logic like the parent comment implied. My redefinition is not a simplification or hand waving - it is exactly the standard we use in civil cases in the US justice system. Looking up the term, it's "preponderance of the evidence" - it boils down basically to the 50/50 above. It is not at all synonymous with a coin toss. > Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act. It is also the burden of proof of which the defendant must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court. In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) I'm not working with the assumption that the US criminal system ever had the 100% correct definition in the first place. It is not the only legal standard in existence and questioning it should not be seen as "simply redefining" but examining further. I agree with the caution, but the whole post is directly addressing the idea that there isn't logic in what's happening with the general trend.

adjkant 9y ago

This is a huge straw man if I've ever seen one (and present in many other posts on this thread). To act as if there isn't any logic in the opposing side isn't going to get anywhere. Because of the very nature of sexual assault, providing evidence up to the standards of the US criminal legal system is very hard to do. It likely means that more harassers get off and very few get wrongful sentences. The logic in supporting a standard that requires less than the US criminal legal system currently is that it will help put away many more guilty people and put away few/none non-guilty people given the rarity of false accusations with evidence that would say, pass a 50/50 guilt test. The lack of criminal recourse leads to a court of public opinion being the victim's only option often. The court of public opinion is far from fair, which leads back to the idea of working on the criminal recourse options to allow for more victims to actually report and fix this. You can disagree with some of the premises of that argument, but it's a valid one (philosophically speaking). In this case, someone was wrongly accused, and even under a 50/50 system, it's clear the charges would not go through, and yes obviously the pre-meditated wrongful accuser should face a punishment. I think some jail time for a pre-meditated false accusation is more than fair. But a discussion and a call for a different legal standard given the uniqueness of these types of cases is perfectly logical. Instead of complaining about the public lynch mob and blaming the mass of people who likely won't stop, discuss and focus on the problems that prevent it. Like actually getting rape kits tested, creating more avenues for sexual assault reporting via a calmer system than anonymous blog posts, etc.

int_19h 9y ago
> and put away few/none non-guilty people given the rarity of false accusations with evidence that would say, pass a 50/50 guilt test. We're already putting away non-guilty people, and we know about it - check out Innocence Project some time. So lowering those standards is guaranteed to increase that number. A huge problem is that in US, the prosecutors have a lot of incentives to pursue convictions regardless of actual guilt or innocence. If you give them a tool to convict more people, they will use it, because more convictions look good on their resume. And in many cases, the minority demographics are the ones disproportionally targeted. So, until the problem with prosecutorial misconduct is fixed, I don't think it's the right time to talk about making it easier to imprison people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/21/why-do-prosecutors-go-after-innocent-people/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/21/... https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B007FA38KW/ https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B007FA38KW/
dahauns 9y ago
>You can disagree with some of the premises of that argument, but it's a valid one (philosophically speaking). Philosophically speaking, If I reject some of the premises, this would be a classic ex falso quodlibet, so - unless I subscribe to the use of paraconsistent logic - no, it would actually not be valid. I fully agree that everything should be done to make reporting crimes and presenting evidence as easy as possible and to root out problems preventing this. But: Loosening the standards of presumption of innocence, one of the cornerstone achievements of human rights, can never be part of this. Especially in the age of social media. Everything else is a slippery slope (and one that has been written about in every concievable context on thousands of pages over the centuries). It's easy to say "it will help put away many more guilty people" if you simply redefine what it means to be guilty to be slightly more likely than a coin toss (or what do you mean by "pass a 50/50 guilt test"?).
- adjkant 9y ago
  You aren't working with a philosophical definition of valid then. http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ An argument can still be valid with false premises. The point of using this definition is to say that if person A disagrees with the premises and person B agrees with them, that is the source of your difference, not a lack of logic like the parent comment implied. My redefinition is not a simplification or hand waving - it is exactly the standard we use in civil cases in the US justice system. Looking up the term, it's "preponderance of the evidence" - it boils down basically to the 50/50 above. It is not at all synonymous with a coin toss. > Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act. It is also the burden of proof of which the defendant must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court. In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) I'm not working with the assumption that the US criminal system ever had the 100% correct definition in the first place. It is not the only legal standard in existence and questioning it should not be seen as "simply redefining" but examining further. I agree with the caution, but the whole post is directly addressing the idea that there isn't logic in what's happening with the general trend.