Sexual assault: court case or STFU

[d00mGuArD]

This keeps cropping up.

The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the order of trial and sentencing, in court matters. It states that you should be presumed innocent, and face a trial to establish your guilt, before sentencing. The alternative is that you're presumed guilty, arrested and sentenced, and then have to sue for a trial to prove your innocence, to be let out.

It is not a principle that applies to anything else, not even other aspects of the legal system, which is why you can be arrested and held without bail even before you've been sentenced and found guilty.

Trying to extend that to public opinion is just absolute lunacy.

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
-Human Rights, Article 11


Accusing someone of sexual assault on the media is most definitely attack on reputation, a violation of human rights, and the accused is protected by law
If you want to accuse someone, you go to court. only.
So, yeah... public opinion should not know, unless proven guilty. so let's presume innocence even outside the court

[Endus]

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
-Human Rights, Article 11

Accusing someone of sexual assault on the media is most definitely attack on reputation, a violation of human rights, and the accused is protected by law
If you want to accuse someone, you go to court. only.
So, yeah... public opinion should not know, unless proven guilty. so let's presume innocence even outside the court

You skipped over the important word there. "Arbitrary". If they actually did the thing, it's by no means "arbitrary". Nor is it an attack on their honour nor reputation if they did the things in question.

You don't have any right to not have people expose your poor behaviour to the world.

[Arainie]

This keeps cropping up.

The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the order of trial and sentencing, in court matters. It states that you should be presumed innocent, and face a trial to establish your guilt, before sentencing. The alternative is that you're presumed guilty, arrested and sentenced, and then have to sue for a trial to prove your innocence, to be let out.

It is not a principle that applies to anything else, not even other aspects of the legal system, which is why you can be arrested and held without bail even before you've been sentenced and found guilty.

Trying to extend that to public opinion is just absolute lunacy.

Actually it's an international human right under the UN's UDHR and applies to penal offenses in general.

UDHR Article 11
"(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

Now, this obviously does not extend to the public opinion, but if media takes it upon themselves to produce names and pictures of those accused of sexual assault they are also taking upon themselves the moral responsibility of handling something as delicate as the future of another human being. Once accused of sexual assault in front of the public you can more or less never fully recover, and therefore I believe the media has to tread extremely carefully in order to make sure any allegation has at least some sort of valid grounds before publishing it.

Look, I don't think sexual assault in any way is acceptable no matter the circumstances, but I think we're straying a bit too far from what can be constituted as okay with the whole mob mentality. It's currently enough with a shallow accusation for the mob to jump at you like hungry hyaenas (and that doesn't only apply to sexual assault), and I honestly think it's going to backlash if we don't put some constraints to what is publishable news and what is borderline slander. The discussion "MeToo" has spurred is certainly a good one and it's about time it happens, but I am genuinely worried it's going to create a backlash once we abandon every moral code that applies to every other topic but this.

[d00mGuArD]

You skipped over the important word there. "Arbitrary". If they actually did the thing, it's by no means "arbitrary". Nor is it an attack on their honour nor reputation if they did the things in question.

You don't have any right to not have people expose your poor behaviour to the world.

We are in disagreement here. About the grammar. After the word nor is attack. The arbitary is about the first part (interference with his privacy, family, home or correspodance. The reason being, there is no coma before the "or"

Which is way the next sentence also differentiates between interference (arbitary) and attack. On the attack part there is no arbitrary

tl;dr: 2 things: 1) arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence and 2)attacks upon his honour and reputation

[Endus]

Actually it's an international human right under the UN's UDHR and applies to penal offenses in general.

UDHR Article 11
"(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

Now, this obviously does not extend to the public opinion, but if media takes it upon themselves to produce names and pictures of those accused of sexual assault they are also taking upon themselves the moral responsibility of handling something as delicate as the future of another human being. Once accused of sexual assault in front of the public you can more or less never fully recover, and therefore I believe the media has to tread extremely carefully in order to make sure any allegation has at least some sort of valid grounds before publishing it.

You should have stopped at "Now, this obviously does not extend to the public opinion", because that's where you admitted that I was right, and then started arguing against freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Which I'll note is also covered in the UDHR. Except this time, it is a direct assault on those rights that you're proposing.

- - - Updated - - -

We are in disagreement here. About the grammar. After the word nor is attack. The arbitary is about the first part (interference with his privacy, family, home or correspodance. The reason being, there is no coma before the "or"

Which is way the next sentence also differentiates between interference (arbitary) and attack. On the attack part there is no arbitrary

The point is that, if they did those things, then their honour and reputation isn't being attacked at all. It was unfairly high, and this exposure is exposing them for the honourless and poorly reputed people that they actually are.

That's not an "attack", in the first place. It's a correction.

[d00mGuArD]

The point is that, if they did those things, then their honour and reputation isn't being attacked at all. It was unfairly high, and this exposure is exposing them for the honourless and poorly reputed people that they actually are.

That's not an "attack", in the first place. It's a correction.

And how, pray tell, you know if someone did those things? Oh I know... you go to court to prove it
Without proving that it is true, then it is an assault on reputation, and thus violation of human rights. Ergo, the media should not know about it, unless it is proven. Which is after the trial.
In this context, it makes sense that people invoke the "innocent until prove guilty" even for public opinion matters
Because if they turn out innocent, then you already violated their rights (note: rights are not only for the innocent)

[Arainie]

You should have stopped at "Now, this obviously does not extend to the public opinion", because that's where you admitted that I was right, and then started arguing against freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Which I'll note is also covered in the UDHR. Except this time, it is a direct assault on those rights that you're proposing.

Do you generally not believe the media has any responsibility in fact checking and actually making sure what they publish is news and not pure slander?
If so I don't really see any point in continuing this discussion, we clearly have different values and I don't think it's anywhere near acceptable as a large news outlet to relay rumors that have no legs to stand on. I think you'll find plenty who agree with either of us. I most certainly do not believe that freedom of speech means you can or should abandon your moral responsibilities, most definitly not as a recognized and trusted source of news and information.

[Very Tired]

I'm pretty sure most of popular the sexual assault claims are never going to court simply because they are long past the statute of limitations. You are basically holding them up to an unrealistic standard.

[Endus]

And how, pray tell, you know if someone did those things? Oh I know... you go to court to prove it

You don't go to court to prove most things. Courts are only relevant for criminal and civil violations, and there's plenty of reasons why these might not qualify, as I've already pointed out. If nothing else, the statutes of limitations are a really obvious example.

Do you generally not believe the media has any responsibility in fact checking and actually making sure what they publish is news and not pure slander?

They're already doing that. You can tell by how they don't constantly face libel lawsuits for their reporting.

[Halicia]

Do you generally not believe the media has any responsibility in fact checking and actually making sure what they publish is news and not pure slander?

The problem I have with libel laws is that while the justice system may "assume innocence until proven guilty", the general population does not.

So while a newspaper may be factually accurate in printing "12 year old claims to have been molested by Abraham Lincoln", they are not obliged to investigate any further and discover that Lincoln likely didn't molest that 12 year old, due to his being dead. Meanwhile, some percentage of readers now assume that Lincoln was a pedophile, because they're inundated with dozens of these headlines every day, and the information overload prevents individuals from having the time to investigate the veracity of any stories.

While I don't like it when Trump wants to make it easier to sue papers that print bad stuff about him.... I'd be open to hearing the pros/cons of expanding libel law to cover "pending charges". If the person is tried and acquitted, those individuals and entities that relayed the accusations should be open to lawsuits just as if they had made the accusations themselves.

I'd love to see the papers focusing more on the actual guilt/innocence of a person after the justice system has had its say, rather then simply spreading gossip.

[d00mGuArD]

You don't go to court to prove most things. Courts are only relevant for criminal and civil violations, and there's plenty of reasons why these might not qualify, as I've already pointed out. If nothing else, the statutes of limitations are a really obvious example.

Well... if something is so important that is protected by human rights, then yes you go to court *before* violating the human rights (by going to the media and attack their reputation). Wouldn't you say so?!!!!

[Endus]

Well... if something is so important that is protected by human rights, then yes you go to court *before* violating the human rights (by going to the media and attack their reputation). Wouldn't you say so?!!!!

Sure.

But you haven't demonstrated any breach of human rights, in the first place. Reporting on allegations is not a breach of anyone's human rights. All you're doing is attacking freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to defend the reputations of abusers.

[belfpala]

You don't have any right to not have people expose your poor behaviour to the world.

Absolutely. Innocent until proven guilty is a right in the criminal justice system. It's not a right in the realm of public perception. The accused have all been high-profile, and therefore public perception is important.

That brings up a broader question. This morning, I listened to an interview with Senator Al Franken's accuser. She says she's accepted his apology and doesn't think there should be any further consequences. But, no, now the Senate Ethics Committee is involved and pundits are already asking if he's re-electable in 2020. Does that seem equitable, for a man who has championed women's issues during his tenure in the senate? What should the fallout be when the accuser has accepted the apology?

tl:dr: this is a tough question.

[Rexosaurus]

Sure, a literal random stranger couldn't ruin your life. But opposition research or someone with a vendetta? I sincerely don't know. If you went and dug through everyone I ever hung out with in my teens and early 20s, could you find someone that would tell you that I was guilty of coercion or the ever popular "misconduct"? I don't know. If something happened 15 years ago with a bunch of drunk kids, I wouldn't be that shocked to find that someone walked away understanding a situation differently than me, misremembering something, or just being pointlessly malicious for the reason that some people are.

I can't even imagine what recourse I'd have if you found some girl I hooked up with that was willing to tell the media that I behaved badly. I couldn't even honestly tell you that I remember every sexual encounter well enough to provide a side to the story. I might be relegated to saying something like, "I don't know, I don't recall ever having conducted myself in a fashion that didn't respect consent fully", which sounds to my ear like mealy-mouthed bullshit, but can I really do better with something from a decade ago after a night of beer pong and weed?

On a smaller scale, if a female coworker just decided she didn't like me and claimed that I did something, I think I'd be fucked. HR departments are cautious and my work entails tons of travel where I'm sure people do get up to a lot of fraternizing. I've never remotely hit on a coworker, but I have no way to prove that.

I definitely hear what you're saying, but none of the situations that I've seen in the news have been as grey as a 'he-said, she-said', where two people were completely trashed and slept together. I'd like to think that people wouldn't automatically try to publicly thrash someone without further proof in that scenario.

As for the work scenario; in my experience it's pretty easy to catch someone in blatant lies. They usually screw up their stories if you apply pressure so I'm pretty confidant that I'd be able to convince my workplace that the accuser is full of crap. You gotta ask them for dates, times, settings, and you could provide character references, etc. Overload them with information so they see that you have your shit together and the other person is just making crap up as they go. Maybe that's just me though.

The only thing I can definitively say in that case, is that false accusations are statistically pretty damn rare. From what research I've done, they're mostly done by the parents of teenage girls who have made up a story to get out of trouble, and the ones that aren't, are predominantly done by people with criminal records and/or a history of mental illness.

[d00mGuArD]

Sure.

But you haven't demonstrated any breach of human rights, in the first place. Reporting on allegations is not a breach of anyone's human rights. All you're doing is attacking freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to defend the reputations of abusers.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...-human-rights/
Here mate. Article 12. Attack on someone's reputation. We are back at the start I guess.
I am not saying the media breach the human rights by reporting the allegation. The media can (and do) report the allegation
The breach is when you go to the media to accuse, instead of a court

Yes they are free to do it. Just as I am free to go out and attack random people
But if I do it, it is against the law and I will face the consequence. And so should they, if they attack someone's reputation

Someone attacks you, you go to court (if you want). And that's it
I will leave it at this, you don't seem to be open to facts, we go in circles now

[belfpala]

Someone attacks you, you go to court (if you want). And that's it
I will leave it at this, you don't seem to be open to facts, we go in circles now

Except that in many of these cases, going to the court isn't an option. One, sexual harassment is not a crime. Two, things that could be a crime happened beyond statutes of limitations. Three, there are many reasons a person would wait so long to report. Four, it's easy to conclude at that point, the media is the only way to do so.

I get it. It's a difficult question. I've personally gone through multiple mental revolutions in the last 20+ years, and decisions I may have made at age 20 I wouldn't make again. No one should be harshly punished for that. On the other hand, victims (which I don't have any, I don't think) may have been suffering for the same 20+ years. What to do?

[Endus]

http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...-human-rights/
Here mate. Article 12. Attack on someone's reputation. We are back at the start I guess.
I am not saying the media breach the human rights by reporting the allegation. The media can (and do) report the allegation
The breach is when you go to the media to accuse, instead of a court

Yes they are free to do it. Just as I am free to go out and attack random people
But if I do it, it is against the law and I will face the consequence. And so should they, if they attack someone's reputation

Someone attacks you, you go to court (if you want). And that's it
I will leave it at this, you don't seem to be open to facts, we go in circles now

This isn't "facts". This is you blatantly misreading a legal document in a way that no country in the world has ever suggested it should be interpreted, and thinking that you've made a point, when really, all you've done is demonstrate that you don't understand what you're reading.

It's particularly telling because you're citing from the UDHR, which is best seen as a first-draft suggestion, not something that's actually in legal force anywhere. The elements of the UDHR were amended and adapted and included in (primarily) two UN treaty documents, the ICCPR and the ICESCR. The former is the one that's relevant here, since it adapts the section you're talking about. But it reads like this;

Article 17

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.


2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...ages/CCPR.aspx

I put the critical added words in bold, to be sure you won't miss them. Because if they didn't include those words, the passage would be unworkable and would serve to utterly quash freedom of speech. Which clearly wasn't its purpose.

The ICCPR is the treaty document that has legal heft. The UDHR is irrelevant save as a historical basis for the ICCPR and similar documents; it is NOT legally binding in any jurisdiction.

[Deleted]

Basically the whole mess is telling me that 3 things need to be done :
- Accuser liable for defamation if they did not go through the justice / law enforcement agencies first.
- Accuser risking the same sentence as the accused if the allegation is demonstrated to be bunkus.
- Some educative outreach to the population : "If you got taken advantage of sexually, go to the cops before doing anything else. Every second you spend whining in a corner to heal from the psychological damage amounts to evidence being destroyed and chance of this horrible experience happening to other people. Go put this predator in jail. If you cant be bothered to report sexual crimes to the police, don't act like society is at fault because its not supportive, you are a shitty person, you didnt deserve to be the victim of sexual misconduct, but you sure as hell made a good case for it as your silence will now lead to more people being the victim of said act.

[Slybak]

Absolutely. Innocent until proven guilty is a right in the criminal justice system. It's not a right in the realm of public perception. The accused have all been high-profile, and therefore public perception is important.

That brings up a broader question. This morning, I listened to an interview with Senator Al Franken's accuser. She says she's accepted his apology and doesn't think there should be any further consequences. But, no, now the Senate Ethics Committee is involved and pundits are already asking if he's re-electable in 2020. Does that seem equitable, for a man who has championed women's issues during his tenure in the senate? What should the fallout be when the accuser has accepted the apology?

tl:dr: this is a tough question.

Not really. In this case, Franken not only holds an office of public trust, but demeans himself as an advocate for the rights of assault victims. One of his first high-profile actions in the Senate was getting an amendment passed that forbade government contractors from requiring employees stationed overseas to use mandatory arbitration to settle sexual harassment and assault claims in civil actions. Plus he's signed on to everything that Sen. Gillibrand has done w/r/t sexual assault and rape in the military and on college campuses. His act not only violated the reporter, but potentially violated the trust and esteem people who care about those issues gave him.

And it gets even worse if it turns out he's a repeat offender.

Yes, politics demands all sorts of ethical calculations that are often necessary but uncomfortable. But this gets dangerously close to, if not careening directly into, "the ends justify the means" territory. Al Franken is no more important than anyone else, and he doesn't get a pass because of the ideological balance of the U.S. Senate. Whether or not he deserves to be there is a legitimate question for everyone.

[Underverse]

Except that in many of these cases, going to the court isn't an option. One, sexual harassment is not a crime. Two, things that could be a crime happened beyond statutes of limitations. Three, there are many reasons a person would wait so long to report. Four, it's easy to conclude at that point, the media is the only way to do so.

I get it. It's a difficult question. I've personally gone through multiple mental revolutions in the last 20+ years, and decisions I may have made at age 20 I wouldn't make again. No one should be harshly punished for that. On the other hand, victims (which I don't have any, I don't think) may have been suffering for the same 20+ years. What to do?

A radical solution might be to encourage 'victims' to develop a trace of mental fortitude, and understand that social interactions are don't always occur exactly how they imagined they might in their minds.

That isn't to say that certain behaviors are excusable, but rather that there should be freedom in our society to interact in non-harmful ways. For example; people have the right to catcall others in public, the same way they have a right to voice negative opinions on others in public. That right should not be eliminated.

To return to my first (sort of tongue in cheek) remark, if one suffers for 20 years because someone slapped their butt when they were younger, the problem is strictly internal. As soon as external damages are involved, suffering may be validated and punishment, whether in the court of public opinion or the court of law, may be justified. Although, I'm not a proponent of public opinion which usually ends up manifesting as vigilante justice.