8 ms·

> Imagine a letter like this targeted at you one day, except unlike Mr. Pretty, you are innocent. “Imagine that you were convicted of murder but, unlike John W

> Imagine a letter like this targeted at you one day, except unlike Mr. Pretty, you are innocent. “Imagine that you were convicted of murder but, unlike John Wayne Gacy, you were innocent.” Seriously what is the point of comments like this? False convictions are real and very very bad, but I know very few social justice advocates who are opposed to locking up serial killers. Likewise, the existence of unscrupulous people who make false accusations of sexual assault/etc is a real problem. But that’s a very shitty excuse to trash every public accusation - especially when in practice it is the public accusation that leads to more victims speaking out. More to the point: Jon Pretty is a notable public figure who has been credibly accused of extremely toxic and disgusting behavior towards large portions of the Scala community. At least some of this behavior is clearly not illegal, merely dangerous and profoundly unethical[1]. Therefore the court of public opinion is the only court that has solid jurisdiction, so to speak. [1] That said: some of the accusations and the large number of alleged victims merit a criminal investigation.

Cyril_HN 5y ago
You are conflating conviction with mere, non-legal accusation. Conviction means someone made an accusation at a legal level, then it was considered worthy by police, then by a country's prosecution service, then by a jury, and then (probably) by an appeals court too. Under normal circumstances, that's a bar infinitely higher than, "I'm claiming to have a story about someone."
andrewzah 5y ago
Someone should coin a law for this phenomenon: Every single time a ~~woman~~ victim makes a public statement like this, in the comment sections a man must be discussing false accusations or the court of public opinion. I don't think I've ever not seen this. People who are abused are damned if they do, damned if they don't. edit: removed specific gender edit2: I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. This is a phenomenon that I've noticed over the years.
- solosoyokaze 5y ago
  It's also a completely false argument since there's libel and slander laws. If the accused was innocent, they would simply sue the false accuser. That they don't says everything. The barrier and punishment for coming forward as a victim of sexual abuse, rape or harassment is great indeed. Questioning every case is ignorance of existing laws setup to handle any false accusations.
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    Not trying to sue someone for slander doesn't actually say anything. There's a lot of factors. How much will it cost? How much publicity will it generate and is that worse than just letting it go? What is the standard of proof that must be met and are they confident they can prove that it's a false statement? What are the consequences if they somehow fail to meet that burden? Etc. Also, how did the left become the party of "if he's in the courtroom he must be guilty of something"?
    - solosoyokaze 5y ago
      So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word? If someone wants to clear their name, go to court and sue for slander. If it's two people's word against each other, I'll believe the victim every time since there's such a high cost of coming forward and slander laws exist. EDIT Since I'm now throttled... I'm saying that coming forward either means: 1. Something really happened to you. 2. You're breaking the law and can be punished. High stakes, no? Which is one of the many reasons false accusations are exceedingly rare if not non-existent. I will always believe the victim unless the perpetrator wins a libel case. It's the legal mechanism for fighting back.
      - pc86 5y ago
        > So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word? Not the person to whom you're replying, but the presumption of innocence means this exactly. If you are accused of a crime, you are presumed innocent until it can be proven you're not.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> Imagine that you were convicted of murder OP points out that we have criminal courts for a reason - he's not comparing this scenario with an actual conviction after a trial with presumed innocence. In your analogy, it would have to be common for people to be fired from their jobs (and blackballed from entire industries) on the strength of a murder accusation that hasn't even been presented to the police, much less been through a trial.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
JPKab 5y ago
John Wayne Gacy was convicted in a criminal court of law, with rules, where he was presumed innocent until proven guilty. You attempt to draw a connection, but it's a false analogy out of the gate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 5y ago
  I mostly agree with the point you're making, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the jury actually really presumed Gacy innocent at the start of his trial. Like everyone, they were certainly biased toward assuming his guilt in the run-up to the trial. No system is perfect, and humans are fallible. But that's kinda the underlying issue with this entire discussion: if she had gone to the authorities (especially if only years after the incident in question, and also consider that the incident happened in a different country), would there be any legal remedy here? I think it's pretty likely that nothing material would have come of that.
  - prepend 5y ago
    > bit of a stretch to assume that the jury actually really presumed Gacy innocent at the start of his trial. This seems perfectly reasonable to me and juries are explicitly picked so they aren’t familiar with cases before trial. If a potential juror knew of Gacy, they would be excluded.
DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
> Therefore the court of public opinion is the only court that has solid jurisdiction, so to speak. based on what his public info shows about his location this medium post (and the ensuing public outrage) cops in that country will have to press charges (in case they haven't been pressed already). There is a high chance he is a flight risk so they will book him, _unless_: - he is actually a passport holder of that country (doesn't seem the case), and - has a proper address registered as is law, (many Brits don't care since British law doesn't require it) - has a strong social family network in that country, (unlikely) - has a job in that country (contracting/freelancing doesn't count here) ... then he is looking forward to spending 6 months minimum in "Untersuchungshaft" (hard time) or for whatever length of time investigations are ongoing (until trial). What I'm getting at is that this is a very serious allegation that _will_ result in hard time if convicted but also until he actually gets his day in court! But for that to happen she needs to do more than a Medium post (make a statement with the cops which can be scary but shouldn't be if she actually brings a lawyer). In case she doesn't then it needs to be considered a character assassination which itself is a felony. In any case posting such a piece is legally risky for her and if she would have bothered getting a lawyer, they most certainly would have advised her against it. The best option for her would be to go through the court system of where he is currently located. Most other options have a high risk of this going nowhere (cost + extradition etc) and even give more room for speculation and he-said-she-said which shouldn't (imho) be the goal of the metoo movement and indeed it should be called out for mob-justice.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I think there are a few problems with this: Another commenter mentions somewhere here that the specific thing that happened may not have been illegal in Germany then (but is now). I don't know how to verify that as I don't speak German. This happened several years ago; there is no physical evidence that remains. This, as you allude to, is a he-said-she-said situation. I assume there are emails/texts/etc. that might speak to Pretty's poor character and ill intent, but that's not much. In the US this would almost certainly not be enough for a conviction. Maybe it would be in Germany or the UK, but I suspect not. Agree that she may have opened herself up to legal liability (at least an accusation of libel or defamation). As I recall, in the UK it is harder than in the US to defend oneself in court against accusations of libel. It is possible, though, that Pretty might be dissuaded from bringing any legal action because doing so will only draw more attention to his bad behavior, and could result in a worse situation for him than just going and hiding under a rock for a few years.
philwelch 5y ago
I think there’s a crucial point that you missed: “...there is a court and criminal justice system for a reason” John Wayne Gacy was convicted in a court via the criminal justice system. As a society, we have chosen this as our mechanism for adjudicating these types of accusations, and that mechanism has evolved certain safeguards over time. It’s not perfect, but it is a far fairer venue to be tried in than the “court of public opinion”. That’s not an insignificant point, and you’re glossing over it entirely.
- nicklecompte 5y ago
  No, because Gacy was accused of things that were actually illegal, whereas much of what Pretty was accused of is clearly not illegal, just shitty. So, as I said in my comment and hardly “glossed over,” the court of public opinion (and the possibility of social / professional sanction) are entirely appropriate! This idea that individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures, or report on their own experiences with public figures, is so painfully stupid that I find it astonishing that you are arguing in good faith. This is not something you would actually believe in other contexts (say, if a CEO is accused of verbal abuse).
  - philwelch 5y ago
    > This idea that individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures, or report on their own experiences with public figures, is so painfully stupid that I find it astonishing that you are arguing in good faith. Then maybe you should step back and consider the possibility that you are misunderstanding the point and arguing with a straw man. I never at any point said that “individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures”, and I don’t think you’re acting in good faith by interpreting me as such. I’m not saying the court of public opinion is the wrong venue for this sort of thing; I’m saying the court of public opinion is, by any reasonable standard, a kangaroo court, and we should exercise much more caution and skepticism toward its judgments than we exercise towards the judgments made by a court of law. Keeping this caution in mind is, in fact, what distinguishes a measured application of social/professional sanction from outright “mob justice”.
throway98752343 5y ago
I'd never heard of that guy, so to save others the trouble, in 1980 he was found "guilty of 33 charges of murder; he was also found guilty of sexual assault and taking indecent liberties with a child" and was executed by the USA in 1994.
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  All true, but you forgot the money shot: “A clown can get away with murder.” —John Wayne Gacy John Wayne Gacy, often called the "Killer Clown," was one of the worst serial killers in U.S. history, raping and murdering at least 33 young male victims. https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/john-wayne-gacy https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/john-wayne-gacy John Waters hangs one of John Wayne Gacy's infamous clown paintings on the wall of his guest room, so his guests never stay too long. Politically Incorrect with John Waters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7zFp7CaJqE&ab_channel=luriette78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7zFp7CaJqE&ab_channel=lurie... Chilling paintings by ‘killer clown’ John Wayne Gacy expected to sell for £7,000 each https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/09/chilling-paintings-by-killer-clown-john-wayne-gacy-expected-to-sell-for-7000-each-6987388/ https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/09/chilling-paintings-by-killer-...

Cyril_HN 5y ago

You are conflating conviction with mere, non-legal accusation. Conviction means someone made an accusation at a legal level, then it was considered worthy by police, then by a country's prosecution service, then by a jury, and then (probably) by an appeals court too. Under normal circumstances, that's a bar infinitely higher than, "I'm claiming to have a story about someone."

andrewzah 5y ago

Someone should coin a law for this phenomenon: Every single time a ~~woman~~ victim makes a public statement like this, in the comment sections a man must be discussing false accusations or the court of public opinion. I don't think I've ever not seen this. People who are abused are damned if they do, damned if they don't. edit: removed specific gender edit2: I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. This is a phenomenon that I've noticed over the years.

solosoyokaze 5y ago
It's also a completely false argument since there's libel and slander laws. If the accused was innocent, they would simply sue the false accuser. That they don't says everything. The barrier and punishment for coming forward as a victim of sexual abuse, rape or harassment is great indeed. Questioning every case is ignorance of existing laws setup to handle any false accusations.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  Not trying to sue someone for slander doesn't actually say anything. There's a lot of factors. How much will it cost? How much publicity will it generate and is that worse than just letting it go? What is the standard of proof that must be met and are they confident they can prove that it's a false statement? What are the consequences if they somehow fail to meet that burden? Etc. Also, how did the left become the party of "if he's in the courtroom he must be guilty of something"?
  - solosoyokaze 5y ago
    So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word? If someone wants to clear their name, go to court and sue for slander. If it's two people's word against each other, I'll believe the victim every time since there's such a high cost of coming forward and slander laws exist. EDIT Since I'm now throttled... I'm saying that coming forward either means: 1. Something really happened to you. 2. You're breaking the law and can be punished. High stakes, no? Which is one of the many reasons false accusations are exceedingly rare if not non-existent. I will always believe the victim unless the perpetrator wins a libel case. It's the legal mechanism for fighting back.
    - pc86 5y ago
      > So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word? Not the person to whom you're replying, but the presumption of innocence means this exactly. If you are accused of a crime, you are presumed innocent until it can be proven you're not.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> Imagine that you were convicted of murder OP points out that we have criminal courts for a reason - he's not comparing this scenario with an actual conviction after a trial with presumed innocence. In your analogy, it would have to be common for people to be fired from their jobs (and blackballed from entire industries) on the strength of a murder accusation that hasn't even been presented to the police, much less been through a trial.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

JPKab 5y ago

John Wayne Gacy was convicted in a criminal court of law, with rules, where he was presumed innocent until proven guilty. You attempt to draw a connection, but it's a false analogy out of the gate.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 5y ago
I mostly agree with the point you're making, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the jury actually really presumed Gacy innocent at the start of his trial. Like everyone, they were certainly biased toward assuming his guilt in the run-up to the trial. No system is perfect, and humans are fallible. But that's kinda the underlying issue with this entire discussion: if she had gone to the authorities (especially if only years after the incident in question, and also consider that the incident happened in a different country), would there be any legal remedy here? I think it's pretty likely that nothing material would have come of that.
- prepend 5y ago
  > bit of a stretch to assume that the jury actually really presumed Gacy innocent at the start of his trial. This seems perfectly reasonable to me and juries are explicitly picked so they aren’t familiar with cases before trial. If a potential juror knew of Gacy, they would be excluded.

DyslexicAtheist 5y ago

> Therefore the court of public opinion is the only court that has solid jurisdiction, so to speak. based on what his public info shows about his location this medium post (and the ensuing public outrage) cops in that country will have to press charges (in case they haven't been pressed already). There is a high chance he is a flight risk so they will book him, _unless_: - he is actually a passport holder of that country (doesn't seem the case), and - has a proper address registered as is law, (many Brits don't care since British law doesn't require it) - has a strong social family network in that country, (unlikely) - has a job in that country (contracting/freelancing doesn't count here) ... then he is looking forward to spending 6 months minimum in "Untersuchungshaft" (hard time) or for whatever length of time investigations are ongoing (until trial). What I'm getting at is that this is a very serious allegation that _will_ result in hard time if convicted but also until he actually gets his day in court! But for that to happen she needs to do more than a Medium post (make a statement with the cops which can be scary but shouldn't be if she actually brings a lawyer). In case she doesn't then it needs to be considered a character assassination which itself is a felony. In any case posting such a piece is legally risky for her and if she would have bothered getting a lawyer, they most certainly would have advised her against it. The best option for her would be to go through the court system of where he is currently located. Most other options have a high risk of this going nowhere (cost + extradition etc) and even give more room for speculation and he-said-she-said which shouldn't (imho) be the goal of the metoo movement and indeed it should be called out for mob-justice.

kelnos 5y ago
I think there are a few problems with this: Another commenter mentions somewhere here that the specific thing that happened may not have been illegal in Germany then (but is now). I don't know how to verify that as I don't speak German. This happened several years ago; there is no physical evidence that remains. This, as you allude to, is a he-said-she-said situation. I assume there are emails/texts/etc. that might speak to Pretty's poor character and ill intent, but that's not much. In the US this would almost certainly not be enough for a conviction. Maybe it would be in Germany or the UK, but I suspect not. Agree that she may have opened herself up to legal liability (at least an accusation of libel or defamation). As I recall, in the UK it is harder than in the US to defend oneself in court against accusations of libel. It is possible, though, that Pretty might be dissuaded from bringing any legal action because doing so will only draw more attention to his bad behavior, and could result in a worse situation for him than just going and hiding under a rock for a few years.

philwelch 5y ago

I think there’s a crucial point that you missed: “...there is a court and criminal justice system for a reason” John Wayne Gacy was convicted in a court via the criminal justice system. As a society, we have chosen this as our mechanism for adjudicating these types of accusations, and that mechanism has evolved certain safeguards over time. It’s not perfect, but it is a far fairer venue to be tried in than the “court of public opinion”. That’s not an insignificant point, and you’re glossing over it entirely.

nicklecompte 5y ago
No, because Gacy was accused of things that were actually illegal, whereas much of what Pretty was accused of is clearly not illegal, just shitty. So, as I said in my comment and hardly “glossed over,” the court of public opinion (and the possibility of social / professional sanction) are entirely appropriate! This idea that individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures, or report on their own experiences with public figures, is so painfully stupid that I find it astonishing that you are arguing in good faith. This is not something you would actually believe in other contexts (say, if a CEO is accused of verbal abuse).
- philwelch 5y ago
  > This idea that individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures, or report on their own experiences with public figures, is so painfully stupid that I find it astonishing that you are arguing in good faith. Then maybe you should step back and consider the possibility that you are misunderstanding the point and arguing with a straw man. I never at any point said that “individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures”, and I don’t think you’re acting in good faith by interpreting me as such. I’m not saying the court of public opinion is the wrong venue for this sort of thing; I’m saying the court of public opinion is, by any reasonable standard, a kangaroo court, and we should exercise much more caution and skepticism toward its judgments than we exercise towards the judgments made by a court of law. Keeping this caution in mind is, in fact, what distinguishes a measured application of social/professional sanction from outright “mob justice”.

throway98752343 5y ago

I'd never heard of that guy, so to save others the trouble, in 1980 he was found "guilty of 33 charges of murder; he was also found guilty of sexual assault and taking indecent liberties with a child" and was executed by the USA in 1994.

DonHopkins 5y ago
All true, but you forgot the money shot: “A clown can get away with murder.” —John Wayne Gacy John Wayne Gacy, often called the "Killer Clown," was one of the worst serial killers in U.S. history, raping and murdering at least 33 young male victims. https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/john-wayne-gacy https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/john-wayne-gacy John Waters hangs one of John Wayne Gacy's infamous clown paintings on the wall of his guest room, so his guests never stay too long. Politically Incorrect with John Waters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7zFp7CaJqE&ab_channel=luriette78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7zFp7CaJqE&ab_channel=lurie... Chilling paintings by ‘killer clown’ John Wayne Gacy expected to sell for £7,000 each https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/09/chilling-paintings-by-killer-clown-john-wayne-gacy-expected-to-sell-for-7000-each-6987388/ https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/09/chilling-paintings-by-killer-...