5 ms·

Several comments in this thread seem to purport that we shouldn't say or assume anything about the truth of the matter until he is proven guilty in a court of l

Several comments in this thread seem to purport that we shouldn't say or assume anything about the truth of the matter until he is proven guilty in a court of law. That's a really ridiculous standard, for a few reasons: - The standard of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a very high bar to meet. (FWIW, I think it meets it in this case). We made it that high because we would rather a guilty person walk free than put an innocent person in jail. The costs of you and I incorrectly choosing not to associate with someone are far lower. There are other standards for guilt in other cases, such as "more probable than not" in civil trials. - A prosecutor may believe a crime has occurred but decline to bring a case for a number of reasons (limited budget, jurisdiction, statute of limitations, difficulty or unreliability of evidence, because they think they don't have a good chance to win) - We make decisions all the time about who we'll partner with, who we hire, who we fire, based on standards far lower than this. In general it's not a crime to be an asshole but you'd never say I should wait until it's proven in court before deciding not to hire one. There's more than enough evidence about this person specifically, and in most cases, for me/you to feel fine never associating with this person, or working with an organization he's involved with, ever again, even if a court of law never gets involved.

trisimix 9y ago
I would argue that, it's a high bar to meet to convict a guilty person. But the lowest possible bar to avoid convicting innocent people. At least in theory.
Scarblac 9y ago
That is reasonable for individuals. But it's on here, in Google, lots of other sites -- millions of people who had never heard of him now form an opinion of him based on this article (or just the comments, or the headline). It's probably career destroying. That's in effect more like jail time than like some individuals shunning him.
- kevinburke 9y ago
  I'm not sure that I follow. My point is that credible allegations of repeated rape and sexual assault should be career destroying even if they are not met with a guilty sentence in a court of law. I could not in good conscience let this person near my coworkers or colleagues for fear for their own physical safety. I don't need a court to send him to jail to make that assessment.
- geofft 9y ago
  A career is not a right. The ability to access food, water, and shelter—life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—are rights. I hope he gets a job and a roof over his head. I don't hope he gets any more glowing profiles in the media. There are plenty of careers I'm more worried about than his, starting with those of his victims, and probably continuing to those who could have been famous hackers were it not for the accidents of their birth.
  - Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
    the right for a fair trial with a Presumption of innocence IS A RIGHT. trial by media does not honor that right.
    - geofft 9y ago
      No, there is no right to a fair "trial by media". Quite the opposite in fact: restricting the media to a government-defined standard of "fair" would infringe upon a free press. In general, the free press is most important when it is reporting on a legal situation that opposes the government's narrative. The right about trials is about a fair trial by the government, and is a check on the government's power to punish.
      - Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
        NO, I disagree the right of a fair trial holds regardless of the system. it's about the accused not the system. otherwise lynch mobs would be justified.
        tptacek 9y ago
        Being publicly criticized for your actions is not the same as being lynched. Please stop.
        geofft 9y ago
        A lynch mob is not justified because a lynch mob goes on to enact punishment, usually via hanging, which is murder. If you are using the word "lynch mob" in a rhetorical way to refer to people who are not depriving you of life, liberty, or property, arguments about actual lynch mobs do not apply. A so-called "lynch mob" that merely has opinions about you and does not do anything to you is not unjust any more than a high school mock trial club is unjust. A so-called "lynch mob" that has opinions about you and goes on to do entirely legal things, like exert their free speech rights to publish their opinions about you, is not unjust, either.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  If you commit or admit to crimes in a non-privileged context (when talking to your therapist, doctor, lawyer, chaplain) then you have to deal with whatever consequences ensue. Nobody owes you discretion.
- princekolt 9y ago
  What about the careers of those abused by him? I'm sure the social shun and stigma of being a sexual abuse victim can be more career-destroying than that of being the perpetrator. Just look at POTUS.
y7 9y ago
One problem with this type of "trial by media" is that the bar for convicting someone is set quite arbitrarily, and is influenced more by rhetoric and media attention than hearing of all parties involved and carefully weighing evidence (not saying that necessarily applies to this particular story). Also note that published stories like these are a vastly different ballgame than the usual person-to-person type of gossip that affects partnering and hiring choices.
- kevinburke 9y ago
  A civil suit is another scenario where people are supposed to carefully weigh evidence under oath, yet no one says “I am withholding judgment until a preponderance of the evidence is in favor of guilt.”
falcolas 9y ago
So, if someone comes along, who has been seen entering a closed room alone with you, and claims to have been raped repeatedly by you - should we stop associating with you? If a previously consensual encounter is later claimed to be non-consensual, should we ensure that you never get a job again in the tech industry? Perhaps "convicted in court" is a too high of bar to you, but given the fact that people do lie about being sexually assaulted, perhaps the bar of "being accused means you did it" is a bit too low. Ultimately it's up to each individual to decide the proper position of their bar, and perhaps this guy did indeed do it (personally, I don't care)... but the current trend of taking the accusers word as an actionable truth is troubling.
- runesoerensen 9y ago
  > perhaps this guy did indeed do it (personally, I don't care) You might want to elaborate on this - it sounds like you don't care even if you think someone is a rapist, but I hope that's not your position? That's a really low bar.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Acting on information is not the same as believing it. You can act on something while still maintaining the possibility the information is wrong. Even a 51% probability can be acted on to good effect sometimes.
Geekette 9y ago
"There's more than enough evidence about this person specifically, and in most cases, for me/you to feel fine never associating with this person, or working with an organization he's involved with, ever again, even if a court of law never gets involved". Not least of all, written admission of crime by the accused himself, in addition to corroboration of several incidents of assault by the news outlet. How is the question of innocence is still being bandied when the accused has already admitted his guilt?!! Equally absurd are the futile attempts to foist standards of criminal courts on that of public opinion despite the significant differences between both systems that you noted.
swat535 9y ago
People falsely assume that that standard is one of absolute scientific certainty. It is not. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt simply means that no reasonable person would come to any other conclusion than that of guilt. To assume that guilt beyond any reasonable doubt as an absolute, scientific and completely infallible standard demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the legal system. The system may be flawed and cases may or may prosecuted for the reasons that were mentioned but many of those reasons like available resources have little if anything to do with the standard of proof that must be brought to trial. Individuals can be prosecuted on very paltry evidence and even convicted if reasonable people find that evidence to be sufficient. To believe that any lower standard of proof is needed to prosecute individuals is to pander to mob mentality that just because most people want to find someone guilty means we should find them guilty. This burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is set in place precisely to avoid such legal lynching proceedings
- Manishearth 9y ago
  The gp never made this assumption, you're making it for them. It's still not the same standard as the one society needs. The state wields a big hammer, and such it has relatively high standards. Us, individual society members, wield a tiny mallet, and as such we should feel more free to wield that than the state does. As the gp notes, we already do in many cases. The courts should really be the last resort for this stuff; society should be dealing with it cleanly before it ever gets there.
  - swat535 9y ago
    I never claimed the Gp made any assumption to begin with. Beyond any reasonable doubt means precisely that. It can vary from person to person and from group to group. The state is indeed very powerful compared to the individual. But the mighty hammer you speak of simply implies that the state can bring more resources to bear when prosecuting. This only means in principle that the state can drag a trial longer (and from which we are protected by the right to a speedy trial) or that they can expend more effort gathering evidence against an accused. Your argument about individual members of society however is, with respect, flawed. The masses of society, when all working towards a common goal are not tiny droplets in the pond but indeed the mighty torrent that can sweep away even so powerful an entity as the state. To advocate for a lower standard of evidence based on the fact that "everyone knows he is guilty" is, as mentioned, to advocate for a trial system based on mob mentality. Furthermore, public opinion can can be easily swayed by what is reported to it and I will spare this thread the question of the media or powerful individuals like Trump or Russia or Clinton etc using the media to subvert public opinion. The system again may not be perfect but it is there to protect not only from the might of the state but also from the dictatorship of the masses which may, unlike the court system, have their own reasons for convicting someone, reasons which may not even have anything to do with the actual matter. This is even more problematic as the court system is at least subject to review and appeal whereas the masses have absolutely no check on them.

trisimix 9y ago

I would argue that, it's a high bar to meet to convict a guilty person. But the lowest possible bar to avoid convicting innocent people. At least in theory.

Scarblac 9y ago

That is reasonable for individuals. But it's on here, in Google, lots of other sites -- millions of people who had never heard of him now form an opinion of him based on this article (or just the comments, or the headline). It's probably career destroying. That's in effect more like jail time than like some individuals shunning him.

kevinburke 9y ago
I'm not sure that I follow. My point is that credible allegations of repeated rape and sexual assault should be career destroying even if they are not met with a guilty sentence in a court of law. I could not in good conscience let this person near my coworkers or colleagues for fear for their own physical safety. I don't need a court to send him to jail to make that assessment.
geofft 9y ago
A career is not a right. The ability to access food, water, and shelter—life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—are rights. I hope he gets a job and a roof over his head. I don't hope he gets any more glowing profiles in the media. There are plenty of careers I'm more worried about than his, starting with those of his victims, and probably continuing to those who could have been famous hackers were it not for the accidents of their birth.
- Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
  the right for a fair trial with a Presumption of innocence IS A RIGHT. trial by media does not honor that right.
  - geofft 9y ago
    No, there is no right to a fair "trial by media". Quite the opposite in fact: restricting the media to a government-defined standard of "fair" would infringe upon a free press. In general, the free press is most important when it is reporting on a legal situation that opposes the government's narrative. The right about trials is about a fair trial by the government, and is a check on the government's power to punish.
    - Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
      NO, I disagree the right of a fair trial holds regardless of the system. it's about the accused not the system. otherwise lynch mobs would be justified.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        Being publicly criticized for your actions is not the same as being lynched. Please stop.
      - geofft 9y ago
        A lynch mob is not justified because a lynch mob goes on to enact punishment, usually via hanging, which is murder. If you are using the word "lynch mob" in a rhetorical way to refer to people who are not depriving you of life, liberty, or property, arguments about actual lynch mobs do not apply. A so-called "lynch mob" that merely has opinions about you and does not do anything to you is not unjust any more than a high school mock trial club is unjust. A so-called "lynch mob" that has opinions about you and goes on to do entirely legal things, like exert their free speech rights to publish their opinions about you, is not unjust, either.
anigbrowl 9y ago
If you commit or admit to crimes in a non-privileged context (when talking to your therapist, doctor, lawyer, chaplain) then you have to deal with whatever consequences ensue. Nobody owes you discretion.
princekolt 9y ago
What about the careers of those abused by him? I'm sure the social shun and stigma of being a sexual abuse victim can be more career-destroying than that of being the perpetrator. Just look at POTUS.

y7 9y ago

One problem with this type of "trial by media" is that the bar for convicting someone is set quite arbitrarily, and is influenced more by rhetoric and media attention than hearing of all parties involved and carefully weighing evidence (not saying that necessarily applies to this particular story). Also note that published stories like these are a vastly different ballgame than the usual person-to-person type of gossip that affects partnering and hiring choices.

kevinburke 9y ago
A civil suit is another scenario where people are supposed to carefully weigh evidence under oath, yet no one says “I am withholding judgment until a preponderance of the evidence is in favor of guilt.”

falcolas 9y ago

So, if someone comes along, who has been seen entering a closed room alone with you, and claims to have been raped repeatedly by you - should we stop associating with you? If a previously consensual encounter is later claimed to be non-consensual, should we ensure that you never get a job again in the tech industry? Perhaps "convicted in court" is a too high of bar to you, but given the fact that people do lie about being sexually assaulted, perhaps the bar of "being accused means you did it" is a bit too low. Ultimately it's up to each individual to decide the proper position of their bar, and perhaps this guy did indeed do it (personally, I don't care)... but the current trend of taking the accusers word as an actionable truth is troubling.

runesoerensen 9y ago
> perhaps this guy did indeed do it (personally, I don't care) You might want to elaborate on this - it sounds like you don't care even if you think someone is a rapist, but I hope that's not your position? That's a really low bar.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
Acting on information is not the same as believing it. You can act on something while still maintaining the possibility the information is wrong. Even a 51% probability can be acted on to good effect sometimes.

Geekette 9y ago

"There's more than enough evidence about this person specifically, and in most cases, for me/you to feel fine never associating with this person, or working with an organization he's involved with, ever again, even if a court of law never gets involved". Not least of all, written admission of crime by the accused himself, in addition to corroboration of several incidents of assault by the news outlet. How is the question of innocence is still being bandied when the accused has already admitted his guilt?!! Equally absurd are the futile attempts to foist standards of criminal courts on that of public opinion despite the significant differences between both systems that you noted.

swat535 9y ago

People falsely assume that that standard is one of absolute scientific certainty. It is not. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt simply means that no reasonable person would come to any other conclusion than that of guilt. To assume that guilt beyond any reasonable doubt as an absolute, scientific and completely infallible standard demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the legal system. The system may be flawed and cases may or may prosecuted for the reasons that were mentioned but many of those reasons like available resources have little if anything to do with the standard of proof that must be brought to trial. Individuals can be prosecuted on very paltry evidence and even convicted if reasonable people find that evidence to be sufficient. To believe that any lower standard of proof is needed to prosecute individuals is to pander to mob mentality that just because most people want to find someone guilty means we should find them guilty. This burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is set in place precisely to avoid such legal lynching proceedings

Manishearth 9y ago
The gp never made this assumption, you're making it for them. It's still not the same standard as the one society needs. The state wields a big hammer, and such it has relatively high standards. Us, individual society members, wield a tiny mallet, and as such we should feel more free to wield that than the state does. As the gp notes, we already do in many cases. The courts should really be the last resort for this stuff; society should be dealing with it cleanly before it ever gets there.
- swat535 9y ago
  I never claimed the Gp made any assumption to begin with. Beyond any reasonable doubt means precisely that. It can vary from person to person and from group to group. The state is indeed very powerful compared to the individual. But the mighty hammer you speak of simply implies that the state can bring more resources to bear when prosecuting. This only means in principle that the state can drag a trial longer (and from which we are protected by the right to a speedy trial) or that they can expend more effort gathering evidence against an accused. Your argument about individual members of society however is, with respect, flawed. The masses of society, when all working towards a common goal are not tiny droplets in the pond but indeed the mighty torrent that can sweep away even so powerful an entity as the state. To advocate for a lower standard of evidence based on the fact that "everyone knows he is guilty" is, as mentioned, to advocate for a trial system based on mob mentality. Furthermore, public opinion can can be easily swayed by what is reported to it and I will spare this thread the question of the media or powerful individuals like Trump or Russia or Clinton etc using the media to subvert public opinion. The system again may not be perfect but it is there to protect not only from the might of the state but also from the dictatorship of the masses which may, unlike the court system, have their own reasons for convicting someone, reasons which may not even have anything to do with the actual matter. This is even more problematic as the court system is at least subject to review and appeal whereas the masses have absolutely no check on them.