![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danieldwilliamI am a big believer in the rule of law and due process. Those are really important foundational rights. Democracies don't really function without them and democracy is important and the best system of government currently available(1).
A vital part of due process is the presumption of innocence in criminal matters; that if the state accuses you of a crime then the state has the job of proving you did the crime, that they must prove that you did the crime before you are punished by the state and that the standard of proof the state needs to reach should be quite high. Beyond reasonable doubt is a popular standard of criminal proof and I'm all in favour of that. I do not want people to be locked up for something they have not done.
However, the presumption of innocence and that standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is the rule for interactions between (weak) citizens and the (mighty) state. I'm not bound by it. I can form an opinion of an individual based on evidence that has not yet met the criminal standard of proof or perhaps might not reach the criminal standard of proof. Certainly I can do so on evidence that has not yet been put to trial. I can act on that opinion (2). I can withdraw my custom or my company from someone based on what I believe to be true. I, as a private citizen, do not have to wait for the criminal standard of proof to be reached, or even the civil standard (3). I probably ought to as a general rule. If a matter is going to go to trialit is probably fair for me to reserve judgement as much as I can until the evidence has been lead in court and examined and cross-examined. It would probably be prudent to refrain from saying "X did Y and is a Y-ist" until there had been a trial of some kind. It might be ruinously imprudent to state as a fact something that is still sub-judice.
So in most matters I do try to reserve judgement and keep quiet.
I might well think to myself, "there's something to that" or "I won't be surprised if they turn out to be convicted." I might, in private conversation with someone I trust, say as much. (4)
Where I usually don't reserve judgement is where several people have accused a wealthy and well-connected individual of sexual assaults. Reporting a sexual assault is difficult. The process is uncomfortable, painful, humiliating, emotionally scouring and deeply unpleasant - at best. Accusations are hard to prove. The risk of making what turns out to be an unproven (but not untrue) accusation is grave. More so where the person accused is well resourced and the complainer is not. So I recalibrate my own personal threshold for thinking "yeah I reckon they did that, bastard."
If three, or four, or five otherwise unconnected (4) people make accusations that appear on the face of them to be internally consistent and where they point to the existence of some form of corroboration of their account of the matter, then that passes my own personal threshold for thinking that the accused has almost certainly committed serious sexual offences and that I am justified in behaving as if they had; starting now.
I'm not, in good conscience, going to go jumping about loudly shouting the odds and pointing fingers in public. I can't afford to be sued for defamation right now. But I know what I know and if several people have made credible accusations then I know they are almost certainly telling the truth and that's enough for me to think, "yeah I reckon they did that, bastard."
The test is perhaps not whether person X did this thing Y in a criminal way and is therefore in law a proven Y-ist, but whether I would be comfortable leaving someone I cared about alone with them or being alone with them myself.
And that's an important part of the difference between the state's burden of criminal proof and a private citizen knowing something. The state has responsibilities not to use the legal system to oppress private citizens. As a private citizen I have responsibilities and rights not to expose myself or people in my care to danger and a right and a duty to act on the best evidence available to me. Being innocent until proven guilty is a necessary protection of the (weak) citizen from the (mighty) state. It's not there to privilege the (stronger) citizen over their (weaker) fellow citizen.
So, I've heard what I've heard and I know what I know.
And at the moment, yeah, I reckon they did that, bastard.
(1) At least so it appears to me in my liberal social democracy.
(2) within the rules of anti-discrimination laws and the civil laws on defamation
(3) For example David Goodwillie
(4) Although see the Salmond case for a cautionary tale all round.
(5) see the Moorov Doctrine on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorov_v_HM_Advocate
A vital part of due process is the presumption of innocence in criminal matters; that if the state accuses you of a crime then the state has the job of proving you did the crime, that they must prove that you did the crime before you are punished by the state and that the standard of proof the state needs to reach should be quite high. Beyond reasonable doubt is a popular standard of criminal proof and I'm all in favour of that. I do not want people to be locked up for something they have not done.
However, the presumption of innocence and that standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is the rule for interactions between (weak) citizens and the (mighty) state. I'm not bound by it. I can form an opinion of an individual based on evidence that has not yet met the criminal standard of proof or perhaps might not reach the criminal standard of proof. Certainly I can do so on evidence that has not yet been put to trial. I can act on that opinion (2). I can withdraw my custom or my company from someone based on what I believe to be true. I, as a private citizen, do not have to wait for the criminal standard of proof to be reached, or even the civil standard (3). I probably ought to as a general rule. If a matter is going to go to trialit is probably fair for me to reserve judgement as much as I can until the evidence has been lead in court and examined and cross-examined. It would probably be prudent to refrain from saying "X did Y and is a Y-ist" until there had been a trial of some kind. It might be ruinously imprudent to state as a fact something that is still sub-judice.
So in most matters I do try to reserve judgement and keep quiet.
I might well think to myself, "there's something to that" or "I won't be surprised if they turn out to be convicted." I might, in private conversation with someone I trust, say as much. (4)
Where I usually don't reserve judgement is where several people have accused a wealthy and well-connected individual of sexual assaults. Reporting a sexual assault is difficult. The process is uncomfortable, painful, humiliating, emotionally scouring and deeply unpleasant - at best. Accusations are hard to prove. The risk of making what turns out to be an unproven (but not untrue) accusation is grave. More so where the person accused is well resourced and the complainer is not. So I recalibrate my own personal threshold for thinking "yeah I reckon they did that, bastard."
If three, or four, or five otherwise unconnected (4) people make accusations that appear on the face of them to be internally consistent and where they point to the existence of some form of corroboration of their account of the matter, then that passes my own personal threshold for thinking that the accused has almost certainly committed serious sexual offences and that I am justified in behaving as if they had; starting now.
I'm not, in good conscience, going to go jumping about loudly shouting the odds and pointing fingers in public. I can't afford to be sued for defamation right now. But I know what I know and if several people have made credible accusations then I know they are almost certainly telling the truth and that's enough for me to think, "yeah I reckon they did that, bastard."
The test is perhaps not whether person X did this thing Y in a criminal way and is therefore in law a proven Y-ist, but whether I would be comfortable leaving someone I cared about alone with them or being alone with them myself.
And that's an important part of the difference between the state's burden of criminal proof and a private citizen knowing something. The state has responsibilities not to use the legal system to oppress private citizens. As a private citizen I have responsibilities and rights not to expose myself or people in my care to danger and a right and a duty to act on the best evidence available to me. Being innocent until proven guilty is a necessary protection of the (weak) citizen from the (mighty) state. It's not there to privilege the (stronger) citizen over their (weaker) fellow citizen.
So, I've heard what I've heard and I know what I know.
And at the moment, yeah, I reckon they did that, bastard.
(1) At least so it appears to me in my liberal social democracy.
(2) within the rules of anti-discrimination laws and the civil laws on defamation
(3) For example David Goodwillie
(4) Although see the Salmond case for a cautionary tale all round.
(5) see the Moorov Doctrine on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorov_v_HM_Advocate
no subject
Date: 2023-09-19 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-09-19 12:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-09-19 12:40 pm (UTC)