4 ms·

What about when the courts don't do the job? A lot of people are understandably low on trust for a legal system that doesn't do anything about multiple highly-

What about when the courts don't do the job? A lot of people are understandably low on trust for a legal system that doesn't do anything about multiple highly-public sexual offenders.

lelanthran 1y ago
> What about when the courts don't do the job? Well, then you'd presumably fall back onto the old witch hunt; plenty of puritanical mobs are still around to say something like "What about when the courts don't do the job". Good thing we don't live in those unenlightened days, eh?
- Planktonne 1y ago
  MLK famously said 'a riot is the language of the unheard'; if you want people to avoid social pressure (note: not a lynch mob -- no physical harm), you have to give them a better, fairer alternative. A functioning justice system for sex crime accusations would be amazing; for valid reasons, a lot of people do not trust that this exists.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    Alternatively you could identify the minority of people who tend to start riots and exclude them from society since they're almost always outsiders who resent being outsiders.
  - etchalon 1y ago
    There are a good number of what many would consider heinous behaviors that are not crimes. Even if our current system of justice worked perfectly, we would still be left with a basket of people who no one wanted to be associated with, but whom had, legally at least, "done nothing wrong."
    - Planktonne 1y ago
      Do you have a solution to that that doesn't involve limiting freedom of association and speech?
      - drewbeck 1y ago
        "freedom of association" and "freedom of speech" are governmental concepts, used to limit the behaviors of governments. They are not some core, universal rights that every individual must respect when interacting with other individual. The accused in this case absolutely still has the citizen rights of association and speech. He can gather with people and he can publish his thoughts. The fact that a bunch of individuals have decided they don't want to gather with him is in no way a reduction of his rights.
        Planktonne 1y ago
        To be clear, I agree with you -- that was the point I was making. There's no right to being accepted, and no right to make people approve of your actions. It's not actually a problem in society that needs fixing if people decide not to associate with someone on the basis of their behaviour.
        etchalon 1y ago
        I agree with you too. It's not a problem you can, or should, solve legally.
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    Doesn't matter how you dress it up, persecuting someone on the basis of absolutely no evidence other than victim testimony is, for all practical purposes, the modern equivalent of pointing at the witch and shrieking. > A functioning justice system for sex crime accusations would be amazing; for valid reasons, a lot of people do not trust that this exists. They have no valid reasons. No system is perfect. Claiming that the system getting it wrong 1 out of every 1000 times is a valid reason is just stupid; no system is perfect.
    - Planktonne 1y ago
      There was a system for the witch trials as well; the accusations were just the starting point for the sham trials, torture, and executions. Are you okay with that because it was a system, even if imperfect? Our justice system doesn't fail 1 in a 1000 times, particularly when talking about sex crimes. It fails far more frequently than that, given the prevalence of sexual assault and the rarity of convictions [1]. Additionally, there's an aspect that justice must be seen to be done: high profile repeat offenders walking free damages confidence in the system out of proportion to their frequency. As above, if you want people to use a system, the system has to work. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/the-saddest-graph-youll-see-today/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/the-s...
      - lelanthran 1y ago
        > Are you okay with that because it was a system, even if imperfect? What makes you think I'm okay with the current system? Upthread I even said "if you are unhappy with the way things are, petition to change them instead of mobbing". Just because I hold the opinion that evidence matters does not mean that I am a bad person.
        Planktonne 1y ago
        I haven't said I think you're a bad person; it's bold to accuse someone of a misreading based on your own misreading. People aren't required to only critique a system using the tools that system provides; progress is often made when people step outside of the system (e.g. Rosa Parks) rather than quietly accepting it. There's evidence for that in countless civil rights campaigns.
catapart 1y ago
Truly naive to think that the legal system that is currently shielding an offender as nefarious as Epstein is the place to turn to for reasonable treatment of sexual abuse victims. Not saying people should leap to letter signing, but it also misses the mark to suggest that the US legal system will resolve the issues these kinds of actions cause.
- RamblingCTO 1y ago
  who said anything about the US? the article isn't even talking about the US? it seems that the author lives in Germany and that he went to court in Britain: https://pretty.direct/consentorder.pdf https://pretty.direct/consentorder.pdf
  - Planktonne 1y ago
    The UK justice system has its own issues, and its own high-profile offenders without consequences. I'm not as familiar with Germany, but I imagine it has the same.
    - RamblingCTO 1y ago
      absolutely. I'm just annoyed by the US centricism here. courts, lawyers, and the executive branch are all just people. it's not a never failing machine and it will never be one. just because there are instances of neglect doesnt mean the whole system is bogus imho. I'd even argue that it's more that the system isn't protected enough against people in power misusing it.
    - exasperaited 1y ago
      And yet it's the same (usually politically-aligned) interests who say: - "the BBC let this person get away with this for years" and also "cancel culture has to stop", - "there's too much filth on the internet" and "don't you dare demand I tell you my age", - or the most complex and culturally nuanced one: "children are being groomed" but "she's 18 now, she's an adult and she can make up her own mind about posing nude in a tabloid". As difficult as it is, any invitation to treat a subject with less nuance is better considered misbegotten until scrutinised much, much further.
trelane 1y ago
"Do the job" depends a lot on what the facts are. Unfortunately, unless you were actually there, you can't know perfectly. It's a matrix: a perfect system would always punish the guilty and refuse to punish the innocent. Without perfect information, you have to choose: will you bias the outcome punish the innocent, or to not punish the guilty?

What about when the courts don't do the job? A lot of people are understandably low on trust for a legal system that doesn't do anything about multiple highly-public sexual offenders.

lelanthran 1y ago

> What about when the courts don't do the job? Well, then you'd presumably fall back onto the old witch hunt; plenty of puritanical mobs are still around to say something like "What about when the courts don't do the job". Good thing we don't live in those unenlightened days, eh?

Planktonne 1y ago
MLK famously said 'a riot is the language of the unheard'; if you want people to avoid social pressure (note: not a lynch mob -- no physical harm), you have to give them a better, fairer alternative. A functioning justice system for sex crime accusations would be amazing; for valid reasons, a lot of people do not trust that this exists.
- msgodel 1y ago
  Alternatively you could identify the minority of people who tend to start riots and exclude them from society since they're almost always outsiders who resent being outsiders.
- etchalon 1y ago
  There are a good number of what many would consider heinous behaviors that are not crimes. Even if our current system of justice worked perfectly, we would still be left with a basket of people who no one wanted to be associated with, but whom had, legally at least, "done nothing wrong."
  - Planktonne 1y ago
    Do you have a solution to that that doesn't involve limiting freedom of association and speech?
    - drewbeck 1y ago
      "freedom of association" and "freedom of speech" are governmental concepts, used to limit the behaviors of governments. They are not some core, universal rights that every individual must respect when interacting with other individual. The accused in this case absolutely still has the citizen rights of association and speech. He can gather with people and he can publish his thoughts. The fact that a bunch of individuals have decided they don't want to gather with him is in no way a reduction of his rights.
      - Planktonne 1y ago
        To be clear, I agree with you -- that was the point I was making. There's no right to being accepted, and no right to make people approve of your actions. It's not actually a problem in society that needs fixing if people decide not to associate with someone on the basis of their behaviour.
        etchalon 1y ago
        I agree with you too. It's not a problem you can, or should, solve legally.
- lelanthran 1y ago
  Doesn't matter how you dress it up, persecuting someone on the basis of absolutely no evidence other than victim testimony is, for all practical purposes, the modern equivalent of pointing at the witch and shrieking. > A functioning justice system for sex crime accusations would be amazing; for valid reasons, a lot of people do not trust that this exists. They have no valid reasons. No system is perfect. Claiming that the system getting it wrong 1 out of every 1000 times is a valid reason is just stupid; no system is perfect.
  - Planktonne 1y ago
    There was a system for the witch trials as well; the accusations were just the starting point for the sham trials, torture, and executions. Are you okay with that because it was a system, even if imperfect? Our justice system doesn't fail 1 in a 1000 times, particularly when talking about sex crimes. It fails far more frequently than that, given the prevalence of sexual assault and the rarity of convictions [1]. Additionally, there's an aspect that justice must be seen to be done: high profile repeat offenders walking free damages confidence in the system out of proportion to their frequency. As above, if you want people to use a system, the system has to work. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/the-saddest-graph-youll-see-today/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/the-s...
    - lelanthran 1y ago
      > Are you okay with that because it was a system, even if imperfect? What makes you think I'm okay with the current system? Upthread I even said "if you are unhappy with the way things are, petition to change them instead of mobbing". Just because I hold the opinion that evidence matters does not mean that I am a bad person.
      - Planktonne 1y ago
        I haven't said I think you're a bad person; it's bold to accuse someone of a misreading based on your own misreading. People aren't required to only critique a system using the tools that system provides; progress is often made when people step outside of the system (e.g. Rosa Parks) rather than quietly accepting it. There's evidence for that in countless civil rights campaigns.

catapart 1y ago

Truly naive to think that the legal system that is currently shielding an offender as nefarious as Epstein is the place to turn to for reasonable treatment of sexual abuse victims. Not saying people should leap to letter signing, but it also misses the mark to suggest that the US legal system will resolve the issues these kinds of actions cause.

RamblingCTO 1y ago
who said anything about the US? the article isn't even talking about the US? it seems that the author lives in Germany and that he went to court in Britain: https://pretty.direct/consentorder.pdf https://pretty.direct/consentorder.pdf
- Planktonne 1y ago
  The UK justice system has its own issues, and its own high-profile offenders without consequences. I'm not as familiar with Germany, but I imagine it has the same.
  - RamblingCTO 1y ago
    absolutely. I'm just annoyed by the US centricism here. courts, lawyers, and the executive branch are all just people. it's not a never failing machine and it will never be one. just because there are instances of neglect doesnt mean the whole system is bogus imho. I'd even argue that it's more that the system isn't protected enough against people in power misusing it.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    And yet it's the same (usually politically-aligned) interests who say: - "the BBC let this person get away with this for years" and also "cancel culture has to stop", - "there's too much filth on the internet" and "don't you dare demand I tell you my age", - or the most complex and culturally nuanced one: "children are being groomed" but "she's 18 now, she's an adult and she can make up her own mind about posing nude in a tabloid". As difficult as it is, any invitation to treat a subject with less nuance is better considered misbegotten until scrutinised much, much further.

trelane 1y ago

"Do the job" depends a lot on what the facts are. Unfortunately, unless you were actually there, you can't know perfectly. It's a matrix: a perfect system would always punish the guilty and refuse to punish the innocent. Without perfect information, you have to choose: will you bias the outcome punish the innocent, or to not punish the guilty?