4 ms·

Ok, read it. That sucks. I understand it's important to have a public shaming, not just to punish the perpetrator, but to make sure nobody else thinks it's a go

Ok, read it. That sucks. I understand it's important to have a public shaming, not just to punish the perpetrator, but to make sure nobody else thinks it's a good idea to do what he did. It's just a big bummer all around. Hopefully this doesn't happen to any other kids, and hopefully the kids growing up now won't need to revisit their own cartoon memories like this.

belorn 9y ago
Public shaming is now not only appropriate but important? Should we reintroduce tar and feathers in order to make sure nobody else thinks its a good idea? If we think that the statue of limitation is to short then say that and request a change. If we think that the criteria for finding someone guilty is too high, then change that. Extra judicial punishment is a terrible method to punish perpetrator and scaring others to not commit crime, and has a long history to prove it.
- mercer 9y ago
  How do you propose we change these things without significant societal support and activism? It's like arguing we shouldn't abolish slavery because of the many writings that expose the extent and cruelty of it, but instead sit down and think about it 'rationally'.
  - belorn 9y ago
    If you mean how we change statue of limitation laws and the requirements for a guilty verdict, then I would propose that someone make a suggestion on what those changes should be. Like say we remove statue of limitation laws. Why have it if we demand punishment anyway and going to use extra judicial punishment to get it? If the issue is evidence, then the extreme end would be to say that any accusation is true until proven false. If that is too extreme, argue for some line between that and something which would include the person in the article. Slavery was abolished in law. Enforcement of those laws are done by police, investigators and courts. It is very clear that the abolish slavery movement had a clear idea on what the law aught to be. So if you feel like you are just like the abolish slavery movement, what aught the law be today?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The only way to prevent the shaming is to prevent the victims from talking about their experiences and to prevent Buzzfeed from publishing things it believes to be true. Enjoining that sort of speech would be vastly more problematic than the general public finding out about actions that took place however many years ago.
  - belorn 9y ago
    Free speech is indeed very important and I am definitely not suggesting something to prevent it. The concept I object to is the intention of extra judicial punishment in order to punish criminals and and using it as an example to discourage others. When we celebrate that then what we really are doing is rejecting the legal system for its intended role and using a trial by media as a substitute. A big part of what make the legal system better than extra judicial punishment is the concept of fairness. Every victim and criminal get the same treatment. If we want accusations like the one in the article published then why not change the law so that the legal system must publish all accusation and the details online and have it available publicly for anyone to read? Have the legal system scale up what this article represent so that every similar victim get treated equally by society? If buzzfeed action here is intended to be part of the legal system then bake it into the legal system. Some nations actually do this with sentenced criminal and the details of the crime being read out on national broadcasts. The main difference to this case is that the national broadcast should then focus on crime in which the accused is not sentenced, or the crime is past the statue of limitation.
- synecdoche 9y ago
  It's trial by the public, and its modus operandi in principle no different than witch hunts. Guilty until proven otherwise. Such medieval reasoning was abandoned for good reason but now it seems to be back in western societies with what seems massive public support. I find it revolting and very frightening.

belorn 9y ago

Public shaming is now not only appropriate but important? Should we reintroduce tar and feathers in order to make sure nobody else thinks its a good idea? If we think that the statue of limitation is to short then say that and request a change. If we think that the criteria for finding someone guilty is too high, then change that. Extra judicial punishment is a terrible method to punish perpetrator and scaring others to not commit crime, and has a long history to prove it.

mercer 9y ago
How do you propose we change these things without significant societal support and activism? It's like arguing we shouldn't abolish slavery because of the many writings that expose the extent and cruelty of it, but instead sit down and think about it 'rationally'.
- belorn 9y ago
  If you mean how we change statue of limitation laws and the requirements for a guilty verdict, then I would propose that someone make a suggestion on what those changes should be. Like say we remove statue of limitation laws. Why have it if we demand punishment anyway and going to use extra judicial punishment to get it? If the issue is evidence, then the extreme end would be to say that any accusation is true until proven false. If that is too extreme, argue for some line between that and something which would include the person in the article. Slavery was abolished in law. Enforcement of those laws are done by police, investigators and courts. It is very clear that the abolish slavery movement had a clear idea on what the law aught to be. So if you feel like you are just like the abolish slavery movement, what aught the law be today?
maxerickson 9y ago
The only way to prevent the shaming is to prevent the victims from talking about their experiences and to prevent Buzzfeed from publishing things it believes to be true. Enjoining that sort of speech would be vastly more problematic than the general public finding out about actions that took place however many years ago.
- belorn 9y ago
  Free speech is indeed very important and I am definitely not suggesting something to prevent it. The concept I object to is the intention of extra judicial punishment in order to punish criminals and and using it as an example to discourage others. When we celebrate that then what we really are doing is rejecting the legal system for its intended role and using a trial by media as a substitute. A big part of what make the legal system better than extra judicial punishment is the concept of fairness. Every victim and criminal get the same treatment. If we want accusations like the one in the article published then why not change the law so that the legal system must publish all accusation and the details online and have it available publicly for anyone to read? Have the legal system scale up what this article represent so that every similar victim get treated equally by society? If buzzfeed action here is intended to be part of the legal system then bake it into the legal system. Some nations actually do this with sentenced criminal and the details of the crime being read out on national broadcasts. The main difference to this case is that the national broadcast should then focus on crime in which the accused is not sentenced, or the crime is past the statue of limitation.
synecdoche 9y ago
It's trial by the public, and its modus operandi in principle no different than witch hunts. Guilty until proven otherwise. Such medieval reasoning was abandoned for good reason but now it seems to be back in western societies with what seems massive public support. I find it revolting and very frightening.