this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
406 points (95.1% liked)
World News
31906 readers
699 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There needs to be trust in the justice system. Otherwise, there's no point in having a justice system. If he's cleared, then there wasn't enough evidence and he should be considered innocent. That's how our justice system works. Don't break the social contract because of your vendetta against rich people.
The problem is that our society doesn't encourage people to immediately report crimes nor provide sufficient support for people who have been abused.
Do you think OJ Simpson is innocent? Would you want your daughter or sister to marry him?
The are different standards for a reason. Society is perfectly capable of being aware that someone is a giant dickbag without there being enough evidence to justify using the power of the state to remove their freedom and incarcerate them. Those are two extraordinarily different things and you know it.
To suggest otherwise is to imply that the government is a perfect arbiter of dispute that we should all just blindly accept. Something tells me you wouldn't be so keen on that stance when it worked against your interests
The government performing arbitration is a power that society has vested in them. The solution to a flawed system is to fix the system, not vigilantism.
The lack of trust in the judiciary is a failure of government and a failure of society.
I don't believe OJ Simpson is innocent, even though not convicted in a court of law. Sorry, not sorry
Yeah, but the whole system is made by people who benefit from it's flaws, which means that it's near impossible to fix it without big societal changes. And while we are working on those (we are working on those, right?) we should remember that our current system is flawed.
It is absolutely a failure of society, yes.
Then why isn't there a revolt? Mass protests? Revolution?
The justice system is literally the foundation of the social contract in society. If it's flawed and corrupt, society as a whole falls apart. In fact, it should.
I think we need to recognise the moral panic of the situation too. People are out there looking to cancel others, others are out to use the moment for financial gain, and then there is the legitimate ones too. We dont know which they are and for the most part, the judicial system is only OK at separating them.
If you can smear someone and that's it their life is over, no matter the truth of it, then what justice is that?
What's the truth here.. not very many people know, clearly.
I think we could use a little more moral panic about the actual number of people who are actually raped every year and maybe worry a little less about your proposed miniscule hypothetical
Also, learn to read: https://people.com/tv/kevin-spacey-controversy-timeline/
To replay your own argument: something tells me you wouldn't be so keen on that if you were the one being accused of a crime you had not committed.
The people who have made false allegations in the past are exactly the reason we can't just believe every victim that comes forward without proof. They are why we can't have nice things. It's not about the odds and ratios either, the state putting a completely innocent person in jail is a travesty of the system. The travesties of what we do to each other are the realities of living on a planet with other humans, we are terrible to one another regularly. We must do the absolute best we can to support victims of sexual assault...untested rape kits are a fucking abomination for instance and I'd be fine with tar and feathers for whoever let that happen. But we still must stop short of allowing even one innocent person to be put in jail.
I recommend watching "The People vs OJ Simpson" on this. It doesn't really get into guilty vs not guilty, but just showcases just how complicated things got in that case.
As soon as they started arguing over the hair samples I started understanding how complicated that case was.
Innocence is VERY SPECIFICALLY NOT WHAT COURTS declare. They only ever declare that there wasn't enough evidence presented to proof guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence is an internationally-recognized human right.
The presumption of innocence doesn’t preclude the fact that criminal courts don’t find someone innocent, rather they find someone not guilty.
This is for the simple fact that it’s neigh impossible to establish someone’s innocence, whereas it’s easier to establish that there isn’t enough evidence to consider someone guilty.
This case is, and sexual assault cases in general are, a great example why we can’t expect criminal courts to establish innocence.
These are often cases with little evidence available either which way, because often there are no other witnesses. Even if there would be physical evidence of a sexual act, it’s still challenging to prove under what circumstances those acts have occurred, specifically on the matter of consent.
To expect a court to be able to say with certainty that something hasn’t occurred is unreasonable.
That is not to say that it isn’t good that we have these high standards before we impose punishment onto someone, but it is important to recognize what it means when a court comes to a decision.
Additionally the presumption of innocence is just that, a presumption to establish who has the onus to prove something, there is no additional meaning attributed to it in the legal principle beyond establishing who has the onus to prove the facts at hand.
In that regard it’s rather unfortunately named, as it would’ve been more apt to name it “the presumption of not guilty” but I suppose that doesn’t roll as nicely off the tongue
To add to that, that the presumption is specifically a principle that only has meaning in criminal court, because the burden of proof is generally higher than in civil court.
People can be, and have been, found liable in civil court for the very thing a criminal court has found them “not guilty” on, on the very basis that criminal court can’t establish innocence and that the bar that needs to be met in civil court is generally lower than in criminal court.
As such to bring up the presumption of innocence in a vacuum is kind of like bringing up the generally recognized human right of freedom of speech when a social media company bans someone and removes their post.
Yes, the concept exists, but it’s irrelevant because it doesn’t apply to the topic at hand, because the concept aims to govern a very specific circumstance that isn’t applicable here and withholding the important context surrounding it (i.e. the role it plays in criminal court for the presumption and the fact that it only limits governments for the freedom of speech) masks the limitations of said concept.
None of the above aims to reflect my opinion on Spacey’s innocence (or lack thereof), rather it aims to provide the necessary details to put things into context.
In terms of punishment from the government, yes. The court of public opinion is another matter entirely. Civil court too.
Do you think the people are not part of the government?
no, we are not part of the government. same reason the 1st amendment does not apply to private property. it protects speech from censorship from the government.
Considered innocent, by the state organs. Considered innocent, in how the state treats them. NOT EVER AT ALL PROVEN innocent by the courts.
Courts are not and have never been concerned about proving innocence. All they care about is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty could mean innocent, but again, the courts don't care about that.
The standard is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. If someone is declared "not guilty", defacto they should be considered innocent.
Considered innocent, by the state organs. Considered innocent, in how the state treats them. NOT EVER AT ALL PROVEN innocent by the courts.
Courts are not and have never been concerned about proving innocence. All they care about is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty could mean innocent, but again, the courts don't care about that.
What I'm saying is that the basic social contract used to be that you would be considered innocent until proven guilty by your peers. If we abandon we mess with the foundations of society at our own peril.
Well maybe we can fantasize about vigilante justice from masked super heroes then. Who somehow can right with punches in the middle of the night what courts couldn't figure out with extensive investigations.
Or maybe we could get a serial killer to figure it all out and judge Dredd that shit.
While you may trust implicitly, many have witnessed and experienced enough injustice to understand how the world works.
FTFY. Words have meanings and those meanings are important.
Innocent until proven guilty*
NO! That is how the court system, and therefore the state sees him in regards to punishment and treatment. That does not mean, and has never ever ever ever meant, that being declared not guilty means they are proven to be innocent. Just that there's wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Innocent until proven guilty is literally the fundamental basis of our justice system. He is innocent by definition.
Yeah, more apologetics from someone who doesn't get that our system is clearly failing us and we want, no DEMAND something new and different.
A new justice system? Might as well overthrow the government and start over then, because the common law system is literally the foundation of society.
It is the single largest common belief that literally holds together our larger society like glue.
I like your style btw your holding your own in this very candidly. Respect.
That's exactly what we want, yes. And we'll end up getting it too, with climate collapse, so trying to intimidate me into submitting to a system that is inherently biased and abusive and has done nothing but hurt myself and everyone I know and love personally will get you nowhere.
I will NOT change my mind on this and you can't make me.
WE will not change our minds on this and you can't make us.
We can and will make something better and there's nothing you can do to stop us.
Nothing.
Right, because the court of public opinion is never wrong.
Obviously, no one should be convicted if evidence is insufficient. The issue that I have is that it's difficult to believe someone is innocent when multiple people have alleged similar complaints. Does that make him guilty? No. But it increases my suspicion. And I'll never be able to shake that suspicion. It doesn't mean I want him locked up. It only means that I'm not comfortable with his art going forward. Which is a shame, because he's one of the best actors of our time.
I'm not saying to blindly trust the judiciary, but that not trusting the judiciary is an inherent failure in society. We need to fix that, not focus on individual cases that will keep happening if our judicial system is morally and ethically compromised.
Who's not trusting the judiciary? I for example do think they did their due diligence in not punishing someone they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did the crime he's accused. That simply can mean that there weren't enough evidence to proof his guilt. And I think many who still don't believe his innocence see it similar. With cases about sexual assault this is very often the case simply because of the isolated nature of such a potential crime. It often comes down statement against statement with very little evidence to back either side. And since our justice system rightfully rather errs on the side of the accused, that means that many such crimes will never be proven in court!
That's the prize we pay for making sure as few people get falsely imprisoned/punished as possible. The knowledge that there are people out there who committed all kinds of crimes but they will walk free because we couldn't prove their guilt.
But of course that doesn't mean we people simply have to ignore that fact and treat everyone as innocent until they are judged before a court. So in this case, I find it very suspicious that there are so many independent accusation and I look at the case of Netflix which have won the case of their dismissal of him because his actions on set. To me that's enough to no longer want want to watch a movie of him and that's perfectly fine since I'm not a judge trying to decide if serious legal punishment should be forced upon him but rather a random dude on this planet who can't do shit against him beside not watch a movie of him.
Surprising to find some sane, reasonable voices here. Thanks for being you.