3 ms·
Hard disagree. It's well known that people who are falsely accused of such crimes end up having to live with the damage to their reputation even after a court
by Svip 1y ago
Hard disagree. It's well known that people who are falsely accused of such crimes end up having to live with the damage to their reputation even after a court finds them innocent, because that's not the news story people remember. In such societies, one's life is effectively ruined the moment one is accused.
Innocent until proven guilty, and the same goes for the court of public opinion.
- trallnag 1y ago[flagged]
- lazyasciiart 1y agoHow does that disagree with the comment you are replying to?
- trallnag 1y ago[flagged]
- mytailorisrich 1y agoThere is a big difference between being accused and going to trial. I agree that identities should not be published based only on "accusations". There is a big difference between being caught in the act and charged following an investigation. Currently Europe is moving/has moved to an extreme position beyond common sense as it has done on several other issues based on "good intentions". In some cases there is also a pressure to charge and go to trial just based on accusations (e.g. rape cases), which is another issue.
- KoolKat23 1y agoYou are still innocent at trial. There's no good from this only figurative village mobs and witch hunts. From my experience something culturally more common in the anglosphere too.
- KoolKat23 1y agoYou are still innocent at trial. There's no good from this only witch hunts. Something more common more recently in the anglosphere too.
- Svip 1y agoThis is probably also an instance of a significant cultural difference. Continental Europe generally believes in rehabilitation, whereas the Anglosphere - and the US in particular - strike me more as having a vengeful justice system. Public shaming of people at trial is incompatible with the belief in rehabilitation.
- mytailorisrich 1y agoShame of being convicted of a crime and rehabilitation are separate issues and this is not a cultural difference between continental Europe (which isn't even an homogeneous entity) and the "Anglosphere", either per se.
- lazyasciiart 1y agoA trial is held before any conviction.
- jampekka 1y agoIn Finland sentence can be reduced if the case has been publicized widely, i.e. the "shame" is seen as a punishment itself. Being labeled as "a criminal" for sure hinders rehabilitation. It reduces opportunities and probably affects identity. Based on how crime and offenders are publicly discussed in the US, it seems there's very little interest in rehabilitation, except if the person is of high status. Per my common sense the US culture is often just plain cruel with people revelling in others' suffering if they are labeled as "outsiders".
- seabass-labrax 1y ago> In Finland sentence can be reduced if the case has been publicized widely, i.e. the "shame" is seen as a punishment itself. This is to some extent true in the UK as well. Pubic figures are likely to lose their income if convicted of a crime, whereas someone in a less visible or responsible profession is more likely to be able to continue working immediately after serving their sentence (or during, if the sentence is non-custodial). This is therefore considered a mitigating factor during sentencing. One result of this is that the law can sometimes appear to be more lenient on celebrities or other notable individuals, but it is really just making the system equitable so that the sentence has the same effect regardless of the criminal's personal situation.
- jampekka 1y agoWhat is the "common sense" here? My common sense can't see really any benefits from publicizing the information.
- xvokcarts 1y agoDon't you think that if it's in the name of the people that the people should have the right to know? Aren't trials public anyway?
- jampekka 1y agoIf you are interested, you can go to the court to watch the proceedings or get the documents.