4 ms·

I don't think anything happened to innocent until proven guilty. Bill Cosby for example, was guilty, which by your argument justifies the media circus. I'm not

I don't think anything happened to innocent until proven guilty. Bill Cosby for example, was guilty, which by your argument justifies the media circus. I'm not surprised a defense attorney had a hard time defending a rapist. As a mild media observer, the last few false accusations that cropped up seemed to be summarily dismissed, with a total drop of credibility for the accusers. Remember "Hugh Mungus?" Or Aziz Ansari's awkward date where he recommended a wine choice? Last I checked Aziz still has a career, and Hugh turned out fine. Basically, I disagree with the premise that people's lives are being ruined by false accusations. Considering that they're so rare already, and that the media-participant world moves on quickly when an accusation turns out to be false (or even "punishes" the false accuser), the current (much repeated by right wing media) narrative of "innocent until proven guilty is dead" and "#metoo is destroying honest men's families" is a false narrative. Edit: I'm very happy to have a majority disagree with me, but I could learn a lot more about why my take is unpopular if someone could spare a few sentences as to why they disagree, alongside their downvote.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago
I haven’t voted on your comment. Here’s something your comment made me think: I want us to shame convicted criminals. Shaming accused criminals is dangerous and makes finding real convictions hard. Maybe so far every major public accusation was correct. But would you ever put it past some crooked billionaire to fund a false accusation campaign against someone? To use a few political characters as an example, what if the Koch brothers led a smear campaign like this against the next Bernie Sanders? Should we behave as if accusations are generally true, and begin treating the accused as guilty immediately? Or should we recognize that while rape and other assaults do happen often and are terrible crimes, the court of public opinion could still be intentionally manipulated by bad actors, and such a manipulation represents a powerful tool for smearing good people? This is what I see being discussed in these comments. The risk that we create when we automatically believe all accusations. I totally get the history of dismissal men have had towards women that has led to a shameful lack of conviction for sex crimes. And so I understand why defaulting to believing the women is a good idea. And between some random public citizens, or comedians etc, I’m less worried about false accusations. But once big party politics get involved, it seems way easier for me to imagine a false accusation being used as a tool of public manipulation. And that’s something I think we should be mindful of. What do you think of that?
- eric_h 8y ago
  The issue at hand is specifically accusations of sexual assault which are provably significantly under reported and often dismissed when reported. This is a problem that needs to be solved and the first step to solving it is to listen to and believe the people who have been assaulted.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    I see. So you are discussing the importance of listening to the accusers. I’m sure we’d agree on many points there. I see a lot of other people here talking about something different. Specifically I see other people here talking about the potential misuse of sexual assault accusations as it relates to Washington politics. It’s pretty hard to separate “believing the accuser by default” and “being concerned about false accusations as a means of slander” as they both relate to largely the same discussion. But I also think a lot of confusion and misunderstanding occurs when one party is trying to talk about one of those ideas, and the other is trying to talk about another. They’re not necessarily exclusive, but I don’t think they’re identical discussions.
    - komali2 8y ago
      Are they not? As I stated in my OP, false sexual assault allegations are extraordinarily rare. This includes ones made against public figures. And, when they are made, they are found out and dismissed.
- olivermarks 8y ago
  I posted the parent thoughts, and I think the Cosby case (and again I'm not commenting on his innocence or guilt here) is relevant to your thoughts. Cosby was a major role model in the 90's and arguably a major force for societal good. The bare facts of his legal journey are that a stand up comedian caused rumors about Cosby assaulting women to go viral in the initial mass use of social media era. Cosby refrained from commenting on this at that time. Multiple accusations were made which were heavily publicized internationally in great detail, tarnishing his legacy and image. Famous lawyer Allred said Cosby would need to put aside 100 million usd in compensation for his victims in 2012. multiple people came forward with claims of being drugged and raped, sometimes on multiple occasions, by Cosby. Allred attempted to bring 12 cases to court but only one, Andrea Consand, was allowed by the courts. There was a mistrial and then another trial which Allred won for Consand. several of the other accusers - who couldn't sue anyway due to to expired statutes - had their recollections misproven by the Cosby defense with no subsequent action taken for defamation. Cosby was of course jailed. The broader effect of all this was arguably a trial by media, the destruction of Cosby and his businesses, and presumably costly compensation for Allred and Constand to come. Cosby was worth 350 million USD at his peak, tried to buy NBC TV in 2012 and wasn't afraid to say what he thought. He has enemies. He was rich enough to pay for depraved sex every day of his life if he so chose. Cosby may well be insane and illogically chose to drug and rape women, risking everything and losing. That is not my point. If someone who has 350m can be destroyed in the media over multiple years based on accusations, where does that leave the rest of us? what defense do we have if a predatory past acquaintance publicly accuses us of sexual assault? It seems we have no rights and little entitlement to presumed innocence- and as you rightly point out once you add politics into the mix weaponized sex appears to be an attack we are defenseless against.
Aloha 8y ago
In essence we've traded trying people in the court of public opinion for an actual court.
mpweiher 8y ago
> I don't think anything happened to innocent until proven guilty. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/11/reflections-hashtag/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/11/reflections-hash... To remember, this wasn't "innocent until proven guilty", but "found innocent in court". > I disagree with the premise that people's lives are being ruined by false accusations. The editor of the New York Review of Books was forced to resign for running the Gomeshi piece.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > but "found innocent in court". No, people are found "not guilty" by the court. That doesn't mean "he didn't do it", it means "we the jury are not persuaded to the very high criminal burden of proof ('beyond all reasonable doubt') that he did it". That might include "he definitely didn't do it", but it also includes "he probably did it" and "he almost certainly did do it".
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    There was no jury. In legal terms, "innocent" and "not proven to be guilty" are equivalent, hence "innocent until proven guilty". The case was dismissed with rather strong wording by the judge: On March 24, 2016, the judge delivered the verdict. Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice William Horkins stated that the inconsistency and "outright deception" of the witness' testimony had irreparably weakened the prosecution's case.[56] "Each complainant," he wrote, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion." Referring to a witness' excuse that she was merely trying to "navigate" the proceeding, Horkins replied "'Navigating' this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."[57] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

I haven’t voted on your comment. Here’s something your comment made me think: I want us to shame convicted criminals. Shaming accused criminals is dangerous and makes finding real convictions hard. Maybe so far every major public accusation was correct. But would you ever put it past some crooked billionaire to fund a false accusation campaign against someone? To use a few political characters as an example, what if the Koch brothers led a smear campaign like this against the next Bernie Sanders? Should we behave as if accusations are generally true, and begin treating the accused as guilty immediately? Or should we recognize that while rape and other assaults do happen often and are terrible crimes, the court of public opinion could still be intentionally manipulated by bad actors, and such a manipulation represents a powerful tool for smearing good people? This is what I see being discussed in these comments. The risk that we create when we automatically believe all accusations. I totally get the history of dismissal men have had towards women that has led to a shameful lack of conviction for sex crimes. And so I understand why defaulting to believing the women is a good idea. And between some random public citizens, or comedians etc, I’m less worried about false accusations. But once big party politics get involved, it seems way easier for me to imagine a false accusation being used as a tool of public manipulation. And that’s something I think we should be mindful of. What do you think of that?

eric_h 8y ago
The issue at hand is specifically accusations of sexual assault which are provably significantly under reported and often dismissed when reported. This is a problem that needs to be solved and the first step to solving it is to listen to and believe the people who have been assaulted.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  I see. So you are discussing the importance of listening to the accusers. I’m sure we’d agree on many points there. I see a lot of other people here talking about something different. Specifically I see other people here talking about the potential misuse of sexual assault accusations as it relates to Washington politics. It’s pretty hard to separate “believing the accuser by default” and “being concerned about false accusations as a means of slander” as they both relate to largely the same discussion. But I also think a lot of confusion and misunderstanding occurs when one party is trying to talk about one of those ideas, and the other is trying to talk about another. They’re not necessarily exclusive, but I don’t think they’re identical discussions.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Are they not? As I stated in my OP, false sexual assault allegations are extraordinarily rare. This includes ones made against public figures. And, when they are made, they are found out and dismissed.
olivermarks 8y ago
I posted the parent thoughts, and I think the Cosby case (and again I'm not commenting on his innocence or guilt here) is relevant to your thoughts. Cosby was a major role model in the 90's and arguably a major force for societal good. The bare facts of his legal journey are that a stand up comedian caused rumors about Cosby assaulting women to go viral in the initial mass use of social media era. Cosby refrained from commenting on this at that time. Multiple accusations were made which were heavily publicized internationally in great detail, tarnishing his legacy and image. Famous lawyer Allred said Cosby would need to put aside 100 million usd in compensation for his victims in 2012. multiple people came forward with claims of being drugged and raped, sometimes on multiple occasions, by Cosby. Allred attempted to bring 12 cases to court but only one, Andrea Consand, was allowed by the courts. There was a mistrial and then another trial which Allred won for Consand. several of the other accusers - who couldn't sue anyway due to to expired statutes - had their recollections misproven by the Cosby defense with no subsequent action taken for defamation. Cosby was of course jailed. The broader effect of all this was arguably a trial by media, the destruction of Cosby and his businesses, and presumably costly compensation for Allred and Constand to come. Cosby was worth 350 million USD at his peak, tried to buy NBC TV in 2012 and wasn't afraid to say what he thought. He has enemies. He was rich enough to pay for depraved sex every day of his life if he so chose. Cosby may well be insane and illogically chose to drug and rape women, risking everything and losing. That is not my point. If someone who has 350m can be destroyed in the media over multiple years based on accusations, where does that leave the rest of us? what defense do we have if a predatory past acquaintance publicly accuses us of sexual assault? It seems we have no rights and little entitlement to presumed innocence- and as you rightly point out once you add politics into the mix weaponized sex appears to be an attack we are defenseless against.

Aloha 8y ago

In essence we've traded trying people in the court of public opinion for an actual court.

mpweiher 8y ago

> I don't think anything happened to innocent until proven guilty. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/11/reflections-hashtag/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/11/reflections-hash... To remember, this wasn't "innocent until proven guilty", but "found innocent in court". > I disagree with the premise that people's lives are being ruined by false accusations. The editor of the New York Review of Books was forced to resign for running the Gomeshi piece.

DanBC 8y ago
> but "found innocent in court". No, people are found "not guilty" by the court. That doesn't mean "he didn't do it", it means "we the jury are not persuaded to the very high criminal burden of proof ('beyond all reasonable doubt') that he did it". That might include "he definitely didn't do it", but it also includes "he probably did it" and "he almost certainly did do it".
- mpweiher 8y ago
  There was no jury. In legal terms, "innocent" and "not proven to be guilty" are equivalent, hence "innocent until proven guilty". The case was dismissed with rather strong wording by the judge: On March 24, 2016, the judge delivered the verdict. Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice William Horkins stated that the inconsistency and "outright deception" of the witness' testimony had irreparably weakened the prosecution's case.[56] "Each complainant," he wrote, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion." Referring to a witness' excuse that she was merely trying to "navigate" the proceeding, Horkins replied "'Navigating' this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."[57] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi