3 ms·

> "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I think the question is whether it ought to be a social norm. What do you thin

> "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I think the question is whether it ought to be a social norm. What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? I think of "Innocent until proven guilty" as a sort of viral trope. People think it's the norm, so when the question comes up, this phrase appears in their minds and is the first thought on justice. But I'm not sure it's a good norm, at least I have yet to hear arguments about why we should follow it, especially outside of the legal realm.

bombcar 4y ago
As a moral principle it’s kind of vague but you can take it as “when in doubt assume the best of people” which can work as an anti-prejudice tool. But just because the bar is set so high for criminal guilt doesn’t mean we can or should use it elsewhere. And much of personal interactions are basically “guilty until proven innocent” because the risk (even if minor) isn’t worth it. Most people have no problem being told they can’t share a bathroom stall with you even if you’d share one with a spouse. Even civil cases have a lower bar, and many personal interactions are way lower. And while I do have a problem with “do one crime and never be hirable again for anything” I do not have a problem with certain crime blocking certain types of work, and/or subjecting you to additional scrutiny.
concinds 4y ago
Upvoted you, people shouldn't downvote perfectly fine comments. > What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? We have circumstantial evidence that he did it; testimonies from victims, who have made credible claims, etc. There's also a difference between making sure you're not victimized (e.g. being careful around alleged abusers, or Carlsen being suspicious about a suspected cheater), but that doesn't apply to internet gossipers. And the public's reaction to Prince Andrew would be different if he was a nobody, who was publicly vilified by the most influential people, with zero evidence available to the public; compared to him being a powerful person, who is publicly protected by the most influential people, with plenty of circumstantial public evidence. I think he's guilty, but there's context to my belief. What irks me is when people take sides in "he said she said" conflicts (i.e. with zero public evidence) between two people they've never met. "Innocent until proven guilty only applies to courts!" is reasoning I've seen far too often regarding accusations published in some random tweet, and it's really quite ugly.

bombcar 4y ago

As a moral principle it’s kind of vague but you can take it as “when in doubt assume the best of people” which can work as an anti-prejudice tool. But just because the bar is set so high for criminal guilt doesn’t mean we can or should use it elsewhere. And much of personal interactions are basically “guilty until proven innocent” because the risk (even if minor) isn’t worth it. Most people have no problem being told they can’t share a bathroom stall with you even if you’d share one with a spouse. Even civil cases have a lower bar, and many personal interactions are way lower. And while I do have a problem with “do one crime and never be hirable again for anything” I do not have a problem with certain crime blocking certain types of work, and/or subjecting you to additional scrutiny.

concinds 4y ago

Upvoted you, people shouldn't downvote perfectly fine comments. > What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? We have circumstantial evidence that he did it; testimonies from victims, who have made credible claims, etc. There's also a difference between making sure you're not victimized (e.g. being careful around alleged abusers, or Carlsen being suspicious about a suspected cheater), but that doesn't apply to internet gossipers. And the public's reaction to Prince Andrew would be different if he was a nobody, who was publicly vilified by the most influential people, with zero evidence available to the public; compared to him being a powerful person, who is publicly protected by the most influential people, with plenty of circumstantial public evidence. I think he's guilty, but there's context to my belief. What irks me is when people take sides in "he said she said" conflicts (i.e. with zero public evidence) between two people they've never met. "Innocent until proven guilty only applies to courts!" is reasoning I've seen far too often regarding accusations published in some random tweet, and it's really quite ugly.