4 ms·

Innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) has been put to the test and found lacking in the current wave of revelations. The main reason for this seems t

Innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) has been put to the test and found lacking in the current wave of revelations. The main reason for this seems to be that too many appeal institutions have been protecting perps, out of some notion that such abuse is not important enough (or something!). Complaints have not been taken sufficiently seriously to start serious investigations leading to serious consequences. This is the situation which actually legitimizes public shaming of the perps, and which will allow victims (women mostly) to get a fairer hearing moving forwards, and not continue to be told to keep quiet and endure, or worse. And so we can hopefully expect to return to upholding 'innocent until proven guilty' once these (seemingly new) moral standards have taken hold even in places of authority. Because that is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society.

geofft 9y ago
It's also important to remember that innocent until proven guilty is a check on the otherwise unchecked, absolute, and final power of the state depriving a citizen of their fundamental rights by imprisoning them. If you are not a state, it may well still be a good ideal, but it's not nearly as binding on you—in much the same way that e.g. free speech is also a good ideal for individuals and companies but you are not obligated to avoid having opinions on the content of speech the way the state is.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Obviously, but the idea that we can only have one standard or the other seems like a false dichotomy. Maybe we should be looking at how to take a more Bayesian approach to legal decision-making.
  - geofft 9y ago
    Sure. The legal system does sort of support that - the standard of evidence in a criminal trial is a lot higher than in a civil suit. It's quite possible to be in a situation where for some reason the government cannot punish you for a crime (maybe failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe expiry of the statute of limitations, which is also a check on the government's power), but someone can publish that you have committed a crime, and another suit will decide that what they've said is true enough to avoid them having libeled you. Or they can find you in breach of a contract where you said you wouldn't do what you did, etc. (My understanding is that this is basically why you sometimes see contracts banning illegal behavior. It's hard to prove illegal behavior to the extent required to throw you in prison, and that's a good thing, but it's easier to find you in breach of contract.)
bsder 9y ago
> Innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) has been put to the test and found lacking in the current wave of revelations. This is all well and good until you are on the wrong side of that equation. We nominally prioritize "protecting the innocent" over "punishing the guilty". There are VERY good reasons why we set things up this way. You want the wheels of justice to grind accurately.
- stareatgoats 9y ago
  Agreed. Not sure if you read my comment to the end, but that's more or less my position too. As well as the broad public. So when this still happens, there must be a reason for it. The theory of why is the essence of my comment above.
Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
"In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights" I think when you start opposing human rights you cross into fascism territory.
- stareatgoats 9y ago
  Agreed, it's an important principle. But, as with many (all?) important principles, there are situations, contexts and exceptions that will cause them to yield, if only temporarily. And in this specific case I think you might find that the circumstance far from fascist, if not the exact opposite. Please note we are not talking about relaxing any burden of proof in courts of law, this is about publishing accusations of possible criminal misconduct in media. It's my conviction that this is a morally defensible way, maybe the only way, to imprint on leaders in business and elsewhere that these issues are more important than they (obviously) used to think. But it can get out of hand, granted.

geofft 9y ago

It's also important to remember that innocent until proven guilty is a check on the otherwise unchecked, absolute, and final power of the state depriving a citizen of their fundamental rights by imprisoning them. If you are not a state, it may well still be a good ideal, but it's not nearly as binding on you—in much the same way that e.g. free speech is also a good ideal for individuals and companies but you are not obligated to avoid having opinions on the content of speech the way the state is.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Obviously, but the idea that we can only have one standard or the other seems like a false dichotomy. Maybe we should be looking at how to take a more Bayesian approach to legal decision-making.
- geofft 9y ago
  Sure. The legal system does sort of support that - the standard of evidence in a criminal trial is a lot higher than in a civil suit. It's quite possible to be in a situation where for some reason the government cannot punish you for a crime (maybe failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe expiry of the statute of limitations, which is also a check on the government's power), but someone can publish that you have committed a crime, and another suit will decide that what they've said is true enough to avoid them having libeled you. Or they can find you in breach of a contract where you said you wouldn't do what you did, etc. (My understanding is that this is basically why you sometimes see contracts banning illegal behavior. It's hard to prove illegal behavior to the extent required to throw you in prison, and that's a good thing, but it's easier to find you in breach of contract.)

bsder 9y ago

> Innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) has been put to the test and found lacking in the current wave of revelations. This is all well and good until you are on the wrong side of that equation. We nominally prioritize "protecting the innocent" over "punishing the guilty". There are VERY good reasons why we set things up this way. You want the wheels of justice to grind accurately.

stareatgoats 9y ago
Agreed. Not sure if you read my comment to the end, but that's more or less my position too. As well as the broad public. So when this still happens, there must be a reason for it. The theory of why is the essence of my comment above.

Idontknowmyuser 9y ago

"In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights" I think when you start opposing human rights you cross into fascism territory.

stareatgoats 9y ago
Agreed, it's an important principle. But, as with many (all?) important principles, there are situations, contexts and exceptions that will cause them to yield, if only temporarily. And in this specific case I think you might find that the circumstance far from fascist, if not the exact opposite. Please note we are not talking about relaxing any burden of proof in courts of law, this is about publishing accusations of possible criminal misconduct in media. It's my conviction that this is a morally defensible way, maybe the only way, to imprint on leaders in business and elsewhere that these issues are more important than they (obviously) used to think. But it can get out of hand, granted.