4 ms·

Technically meaningless outside of the legal process, but not morally. I'm fine with people assuming guilt when spitballing in a bar or something, but when it l

by Vinnl 8y ago

Technically meaningless outside of the legal process, but not morally. I'm fine with people assuming guilt when spitballing in a bar or something, but when it leads to mob justice, then I think it's very much something people should try to keep in mind. Sure, we no longer do actual lynchings, but innocent people's careers and relationships still get destroyed too often. Maybe not that large of a problem on a world scale, but it does feel very unjust to me.

throwaway2048 8y ago
There is a big difference between "Innocent" and "not guilty", and there is a reason that courts return a "Not Guilty" verdict, and not an "innocent" one. Plenty of cases fall within a hair's width of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and I very much doubt you are going to be inviting most of the people falling in that category over to meet the family, after all they are innocent until proven guilty, and likely all around great people right? Legal process fails plenty of times, saying that you are morally obligated to believe in its judgements is insane. The only obligations legal judgements place are upon the people being tried and the apparatus of the state, nothing else.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > There is a big difference between "Innocent" and "not guilty" No, there isn't. Innocence is precisely the absence of guilt; to be innocent is to be not guilty and vice versa.
  - pnongrata 8y ago
    There is. Innocent means you did not commit the crime. Not Guilty, OTOH, means that the current presented evidence was not sufficient to determine that you did commit the crime, thus not meeting its burden of proof.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Juries only rule guilty or not guilty - innocence comes up in appealing existing guilty convictions.
      - bzbarsky 8y ago
        In Scotland, juries can return one of three rulings: "guilty", "not guilty", and "not proven". I'm not sure what effect this has in practice.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  > Legal process fails plenty of times, saying that you are morally obligated to believe in its judgements I'm not saying you should have blind faith in the legal system, but I am saying that I think it's morally better to withhold judgment until it has run its course. Additionally, if you are otherwise unrelated to a certain case, I would still be inclined to have less trust in your own judgment than in the judgment of people who spent far more time on it than you, unless you have specific reason to believe they're especially likely to have ruled incorrectly other than not trusting the process, such as conflicts of interest.
vegannet 8y ago
Sure, it’s unjust that innocent people lose everything, but... every single day innocent people lose everything because of the legal system. “Innocent until proven guilty” may be the best we have for a legal standard but it is far from perfect and applying it anywhere outside of the legal system is a mistake regardless of how you feel about innocent people losing their careers through the court of public opinion. Outside of the legal system “innocent until proven guilty” is a very common cause of the revictimisation of victims.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  > Outside of the legal system “innocent until proven guilty” is a very common cause of the revictimisation of victims. Could you elaborate a bit on how that works? I'm not saying you should actively vocalise that you don't believe a victim, just that you shouldn't be piling on to someone or contributing to them losing everything if you don't know whether they're guilty and are otherwise unfamiliar with the victim.

by Vinnl 8y ago

throwaway2048 8y ago

There is a big difference between "Innocent" and "not guilty", and there is a reason that courts return a "Not Guilty" verdict, and not an "innocent" one. Plenty of cases fall within a hair's width of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and I very much doubt you are going to be inviting most of the people falling in that category over to meet the family, after all they are innocent until proven guilty, and likely all around great people right? Legal process fails plenty of times, saying that you are morally obligated to believe in its judgements is insane. The only obligations legal judgements place are upon the people being tried and the apparatus of the state, nothing else.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> There is a big difference between "Innocent" and "not guilty" No, there isn't. Innocence is precisely the absence of guilt; to be innocent is to be not guilty and vice versa.
- pnongrata 8y ago
  There is. Innocent means you did not commit the crime. Not Guilty, OTOH, means that the current presented evidence was not sufficient to determine that you did commit the crime, thus not meeting its burden of proof.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Juries only rule guilty or not guilty - innocence comes up in appealing existing guilty convictions.
    - bzbarsky 8y ago
      In Scotland, juries can return one of three rulings: "guilty", "not guilty", and "not proven". I'm not sure what effect this has in practice.
Vinnl 8y ago
> Legal process fails plenty of times, saying that you are morally obligated to believe in its judgements I'm not saying you should have blind faith in the legal system, but I am saying that I think it's morally better to withhold judgment until it has run its course. Additionally, if you are otherwise unrelated to a certain case, I would still be inclined to have less trust in your own judgment than in the judgment of people who spent far more time on it than you, unless you have specific reason to believe they're especially likely to have ruled incorrectly other than not trusting the process, such as conflicts of interest.

vegannet 8y ago

Sure, it’s unjust that innocent people lose everything, but... every single day innocent people lose everything because of the legal system. “Innocent until proven guilty” may be the best we have for a legal standard but it is far from perfect and applying it anywhere outside of the legal system is a mistake regardless of how you feel about innocent people losing their careers through the court of public opinion. Outside of the legal system “innocent until proven guilty” is a very common cause of the revictimisation of victims.

Vinnl 8y ago
> Outside of the legal system “innocent until proven guilty” is a very common cause of the revictimisation of victims. Could you elaborate a bit on how that works? I'm not saying you should actively vocalise that you don't believe a victim, just that you shouldn't be piling on to someone or contributing to them losing everything if you don't know whether they're guilty and are otherwise unfamiliar with the victim.