5 ms·
A victim of a crime has the right to pursue justice in whichever way they please, as long as it's legal. Ruining someone's reputation is perfectly legal, last I
by damnyou 9y ago
A victim of a crime has the right to pursue justice in whichever way they please, as long as it's legal. Ruining someone's reputation is perfectly legal, last I checked.
- Idontknowmyuser 9y agoI thought, that we as society surrender our right to judge and punish criminal matters to the court, in exchange for a fair trial for each and everyone of us.
- maxerickson 9y agoJust the punishing is reserved for the legal system. For instance, at least in the US, we have pretty strong free speech laws, so you can publicly state opinions about almost anything, such things aren't reserved for courts.
- Idontknowmyuser 9y agoI'm by no way a lawyer, but don't you have libel laws? I thought that's why newspapers use allegedly when reporting on such incidents.
- maxerickson 9y agoSure, we have libel laws. And you can be sure that The Verge had a lawyer look at this piece.
- evgen 9y agoTruth is an affirmative defense against a libel claim.
- damnyou 9y agoNo. We give up the right to use violence to the court system. Not justice in general. Ruining a rapist's reputation is a perfectly fine way to achieve justice, if that's what the victim desires. Other ways to achieve justice outside the court system include protests, strikes, civil disobedience and so forth.
- Idontknowmyuser 9y agoThe problem is that while I can admit that most of the victims are indeed victims. It is also possible that some might be accused infairly or inaccurately.So I would not really call it a fine way.
- damnyou 9y agoThe general notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is simplistic even when applied to just the legal system. Even in criminal court you only have to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not have to "prove" guilt to the same degree of confidence as, say, the Higgs boson. This means that a small number of innocent people are convicted every year. This is unfortunate, but less bad than the alternative — the only way to guarantee no false positives is to never convict anyone. The legal system, like any other justice system, is about finding an appropriate balance between false negatives and false positives.
- Idontknowmyuser 9y agowhen we talk about proven in the empiric sense a margin of error is always expected. but what "innocent until proven guilty" guarantees is that best efforts were made to make sure that someone is really guilty. Trial by social media cannot reasonably offer such guarantees. Also, I presume you would agree that the police and by extension the court have better means than your average newspaper for determining guilt.
- damnyou 9y agoWhile the legal system might have more power than the average newspaper, that doesn't mean that it is more effective at determining guilt. I was raped 10 years ago when I was a teen. There is no evidence of the crime. No court is going to convict my rapist.
- acjohnson55 9y agoI don't think victims' desires are paramount in any way, regarding the perpetrator, other than their security and privacy. Some victims desire retribution. Others want to extend forgiveness. Neither of these things should be relevant to the criminal justice system.
- anigbrowl 9y agoOnly a court can order someone incarcerated or stripped of their assets. As an individual you're perfectly free to shun someone who you think is guilty of atrocious behavior even if they haven't been convicted.
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago.
- damnyou 9y agoThe victim had presumably considered the trade-offs and made an appropriate choice. It is no one else's position to judge them. In the US, truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.
- michaelsbradley 9y agocf. libel and slander, and consider that in the United States and many (but not all) societies, a person accused of a crime is to be considered innocent (in a legal context) until found guilty in a court of law (by jury or bench trial).
- maxerickson 9y agoTruth is the gold standard defense against slander and libel. So if someone is raped, they are pretty safe calling the attacker a rapist, they just can't call them a convicted rapist until a court has decided that.
- michaelsbradley 9y agoIt's not always safe. I sympathize with real victims, but some people abuse the principle to influence public opinion in hopes of driving things toward a big monetary settlement in civil court. A personal friend was falsely accused of sexually abusing a minor, really nasty accusations, changed his life forever even though he was/is innocent. An organization that champions the victims of such crimes went all out, and together with the alleged victim's parents slimed him hard, publicly and repeatedly, over a year+ while the thing wound its way through the courts; they were very careful to avoid use of the word "convicted." The press gave the slimeballs all sorts of coverage, as it was a noteworthy case. The criminal case was tossed, with harsh words from the judge for the prosecution, the alleged victim's civil case evaporated, and my friend sued the slimeballs in federal court. The result was the utter obliteration of the organization that slimed him, they are now defunct for all intents and purposes. My friend's suit made claims of injury by libel and slander, and conspiracy to commit the same.
- maxerickson 9y agoWhat does your comment have to do with So if someone is raped,, which is what I said?
- michaelsbradley 9y ago