The Principal of innocent until proven guilty

[95thrifleman]

The current situation with that American judge has me thinking. In Britain (and America) the basic, fundamental principle of law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

I have noticed, in the case of accusations of a sexual nature, that the mere accusation is enough to condemn a person in the court of public opinion. Many of the protestors in the recent Kavanagh case where saying things along the lines of "belive survivors" as if they re automaticly to be considered the truthful party and that the accused should be found guilty just because they have been accused.

This has become more and more widespread and the phenomenon has slowly expanded beyond sexual accusations with social media becoming the court and people's lives and reputations being ruined without any trial or legal ruling.

I find it very worrying that our society has gone this way and it's not even about political partisanship as both the left and the right have begun to use this method of public shaming and judging.

Is society now irrevocably seperated from our fundamental legal principles or can this be rectified?

[Prodromos]

I suppose it depends on what your standard of "proof" is. The justice system has pretty stringent standards, but only because they are obligated to treat the accused and the accuser equally, and because the consequences to being judged guilty are often severe (such as imprisonment). Outside of the justice system, however, an accusation alone can suffice as proof. Proof is what you make of it, basically.

[Aexodus]

People believe what they want to be true, because it sets up a situation advantageous to their agenda/movemen/cause. In America, every main Cable news network having its own horse to cheer in the race means two neighbours watching different news can see a completely different truth, when this is challenged, they don’t want to stop believing it. Or survivors either, apparently.

[NorseThing]

Also there are other judicial systems that presume the guilt upon the authorities researching and leveling the charges, such as Code Napoleon systems of judicial justice. The biggest problem with the 'court of public opinion' is that there is no formality of accusation and notification to the accused before public opinion is set. The more formal systems of justice need to present the accusations and then allow for a defense. Even the old Communist show trials went through the motions which is more than any 'court of public opinion' gives the accused. To answer your final questions: Society is not irrevocably separated from our fundamental legal principles. The problem is many people are now getting more sophisticated on misusing the media. We just need to be more careful before we pass personal judgment. Nothing has really changed though. Lies travel quickly and always have done so. The truth takes more time since it is must react. Maybe we should be more proactive with spreading the truth?

[Prodromos]

To answer your final questions: Society is not irrevocably separated from our fundamental legal principles. The problem is many people are now getting more sophisticated on misusing the media. We just need to be more careful before we pass personal judgment. Nothing has really changed though. Lies travel quickly and always have done so. The truth takes more time since it is must react. Maybe we should be more proactive with spreading the truth?

I believe it was Heywood Broun who said, "For truth, there is no deadline."

[PointOfViewGun]

The current situation with that American judge has me thinking. In Britain (and America) the basic, fundamental principle of law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
I have noticed, in the case of accusations of a sexual nature, that the mere accusation is enough to condemn a person in the court of public opinion. Many of the protestors in the recent Kavanagh case where saying things along the lines of "belive survivors" as if they re automaticly to be considered the truthful party and that the accused should be found guilty just because they have been accused.
This has become more and more widespread and the phenomenon has slowly expanded beyond sexual accusations with social media becoming the court and people's lives and reputations being ruined without any trial or legal ruling.
I find it very worrying that our society has gone this way and it's not even about political partisanship as both the left and the right have begun to use this method of public shaming and judging.
Is society now irrevocably seperated from our fundamental legal principles or can this be rectified?

I think you're mistaken about the process of electing a judge. It was not a judicial trial in the common sense. Part of that was by design of the Republicans. They took measures to keep it vague. You might wanna check out how the actual trial for Bill Cosby was conducted. Selection of a judge to the Supreme court is a purely political issue and as in any political issue public opinion matters.

[Gaidin]

The current situation with that American judge has me thinking. In Britain (and America) the basic, fundamental principle of law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

I have noticed, in the case of accusations of a sexual nature, that the mere accusation is enough to condemn a person in the court of public opinion. Many of the protestors in the recent Kavanagh case where saying things along the lines of "belive survivors" as if they re automaticly to be considered the truthful party and that the accused should be found guilty just because they have been accused.

This has become more and more widespread and the phenomenon has slowly expanded beyond sexual accusations with social media becoming the court and people's lives and reputations being ruined without any trial or legal ruling.

I find it very worrying that our society has gone this way and it's not even about political partisanship as both the left and the right have begun to use this method of public shaming and judging.

Is society now irrevocably seperated from our fundamental legal principles or can this be rectified?

If sexual assault ever came up in my job interviews I wouldn't get the job. Whether I committed the act or not. The mess with Kavanaugh has nothing to do with the Justice system as no prosecutor filed charges.

[Aexodus]

Should it not be different for a public sector job however Gaidin?

[Gaidin]

Should it not be different for a public sector job however Gaidin?

Doesn't matter. If there was a suspicion of something like this the merits of my skills couldn't save me during the job interview. This wasn't based on the merits of Kavanaugh's resume. In fact, they did everything they could to hide much of Kavanaugh's record for political reasons. This was a purely political action.

[Aexodus]

There can be no valid suspicion with an absence of evidence. You realise any man applying for a job could get torpedoed by a baseless accusation, if your logic was applied

Again, it’s not a private sector job, the public is entitled to be judged fairly and equally.

[Gaidin]

This isn’t even a normal public sector job that requires a resume. All it requires is majority vote. Like I said, they tried to hide as much of Kavanaugh’s resume as they could.

[Whitey McKnightey]

This is what tends to happen when people start hating and fearing the "other side" more than they love their´own principles. Same thing's been happening for a long time in regards to freedom of speech.

It can be rectified I think, but don't expect it to happen within the political class. These things have to do with culture, and so it takes some effort from the common people and people within the "cultural" classes.

[Love Mountain]

There can be no valid suspicion with an absence of evidence. You realise any man applying for a job could get torpedoed by a baseless accusation, if your logic was applied

Again, it’s not a private sector job, the public is entitled to be judged fairly and equally.

No serious measures were taken to verify whether the accusations were baseless or not. Had it been me, I would've been begging for a full investigation to be done. As a political stunt, I would've even extended an olive branch if the investigation found out she was lying. Unfortunately Kavanaugh revealed his temperament as a man.

[NorseThing]

Doesn't matter. If there was a suspicion of something like this the merits of my skills couldn't save me during the job interview. This wasn't based on the merits of Kavanaugh's resume. In fact, they did everything they could to hide much of Kavanaugh's record for political reasons. This was a purely political action.

More telling than the GOP trying to avoid discussion of the resume was the complete ignoring the resume by the Democratic Party committee members. Thus there was no need to avoid the discussion since neither side put up any credible discussion. The best point the Democrats made was their complaint on the treatment of the Obama nominee which still avoided the issue of discussion of the Kavanaugh resume. But that is not even the point of this thread. Kavanuagh was and is innocent until proof of guilt. Of course guilt or innocence is not the issue when the question is an up or down vote by politicians.

The Ford testimony should have just been allowed to be presented. She should have been thanked for the testimony. The US Senators should have moved on to other matters. Not a point of her testimony relating to the nominee was verified independently. Not that this even mattered in the scheme of things in any case. And a certain US Senator should have been punished by her party for the delay in providing the issue for investigation. If this had been a real trial and not political that alone would have been ample grounds for a mistrial. But again this is political and bizarre rules are the rules that seem to matter.

The problem is that US Senators seem incapable of being polite and quiet when in front of a camera.

[Gaidin]

Once more, innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with a job interview. Reasonable suspicion of dangerous action is enough to keep certain people out of certain positions in this world.

And this type of job interview, it is nothing more than a constitutionally defined political vote where they purposely hid most of his resume and tried to get more than 49 votes for him(as the Veep can break a 50-50 tie). This was not a typical federal job defined by law requiring the hiring of someone actually qualified for the position with a clean record and above all known suspicion.

[NorseThing]

Once more, innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with a job interview. Reasonable suspicion of dangerous action is enough to keep certain people out of certain positions in this world.

And this type of job interview, it is nothing more than a constitutionally defined political vote where they purposely hid most of his resume and tried to get more than 49 votes for him(as the Veep can break a 50-50 tie). This was not a typical federal job defined by law requiring the hiring of someone actually qualified for the position with a clean record and above all known suspicion.

I am not certain, but I think we can agree on your post. Was there something in my prior post you disagreed with? Color me confused.

[Gaidin]

This thread seemed to start with a title of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and then harp on Kavanaugh like it was eating up the Republicans sell line on that entire incident. When Innocent Until Proven Guilty kinda requires an Indictment first. Not that you be brought in for a job interview. That's all. I mean, there's a lot of things Congress(will not focus on a party, will only say Congress because they all did a lot of low ball with Kavanaugh from all angles), the President, everybody could've done to smooth out the edges, find more information, confirm more information, a lot of things.

But this thread, its first thing, and it seemed like your post that I was replying to, was that it was swallowing the GOP's sell-line hook, line, and sinker that Kavanaugh was being literally indicted. I mean, no US or District Attorney was having their hands in anything. Well, except the one from Arizona because the Republicans were too scared to talk to Ford themselves.

And I mean, like my initial post that you quoted. If I was questioned about anything like that in a job interview I'd never get the job, even if I could prove to them I never did it. For two reasons. One, it's no longer about my skills, it's about a suspicion I did something bad. Two, I'd just walk out, because even if I could both convince them I didn't do that and I have the skillset they need, I don't want to work at a place with that hanging over my work relationships anyway.

[NorseThing]

@Gaidin - I agree completely. I had that very problem decades ago in academia. Never had a chance once a crossed set of information was tagged to me that was regarding another person completely. It did not matter. Personnel and faculty are very easy to scare when it comes to hiring and appointment decisions. Their position is better safe than sorry coupled with there are more fish in the sea so one less makes no difference. When I hired, it was pretty much the same. I just wanted candidates that would not later likely embarrass me. Looking for the best qualified is not what hiring is about.