Have we abandoned the principle of Innocent until prove Guilty?

[Trumpocalypse]

I know this is a legal principle but it seems that some are being demonized, and losing their jobs, based on very flimsy evidence.

[enough]

1. Yes. NT

[GatoGordo]

2. It seems to be the case

We were discussing this last night at dinner.

There is a Salem witch hunt mentality that has manifested itself. I fear that anyone (and I mean ANYONE) is at risk for losing their career or job with the mere accusation of wrongdoing. This is very concerning, as anyone can (and will) decide to go after any politician they have ever met (or not met!) in order to further their agenda.

How is an innocent person supposed to defend themselves in this climate?

[tymorial]

31. They cannot

[moda253]

33. It is weaponization of a real issue

There is no doubt there is a real issue of sexual harassment and sexual abuse and even rape in this country (actually the world). So when a few stories (finally) get the forefront of our news it is easy for information and psyops warfare agents to take that and whip up a frenzy about it, politicize and weaponize it and start crushing people under the weight of it.

When you have legitimate causes to follow up on and when the number of those are in the many it is easy to start pointing that at people that you wish to take down politically.

Classism will be used against us next. Watch what happens with the coming changes to welfare.

We are being pit against each other.

[Rhiannon12866]

37. Well said!

It's become a new way to attack and eliminate political opponents.

[defacto7]

52. Hear hear!

[crosinski]

59. There's no doubt in my mind that we're being played.

And I hope we're not so naive when it happens next time, because there will be a next time. If not around class, then in some other area where it hurts most.

[kcr]

60. Exactly. And when this happens enough times?

People will just decide enough of this bullshit, and then we'll be right back to square one, with no one being believed. Those who are still squawking, "But all women must be believed no matter what!" need to seriously re-think if pushing their notion that the literal interpretation must prevail is really a good idea.

[Kaleva]

3. Who has lost their job so far based on flimsy evidence?

[itsrobert]

14. +1

Good question.

[gollygee]

4. It's not even the only legal principle

For instance in civil cases, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, which makes more sense outside of a criminal case. No one should go to jail unless something is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but people have to be held accountable for their actions as well. To use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for every consequence someone could possibly face for any act would keep most people from being held accountable for anything. I imagine that's why our legal system only uses "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases.

[Trumpocalypse]

7. Never said 'beyond a reasonable doubt"

But it seems that a person only needs to be accused for them to be pronounced guilty.

[gollygee]

8. Not even slightly

All I've been reading is how it isn't possible Al Franken could have done anything wrong, and how women lie about this kind of thing all the time. I don't see anyone being pronounced guilty at all. I don't even understand where you're getting that.

[TexasBushwhacker]

15. That's rather odd considering Al apologized to his first accuser

So I don't know how anyone could say he did "nothing".

[gollygee]

20. I've read it here

That they were lying and were working for Trump or the Russians or I don't know what all. Look around. It's all over.

He made an inappropriate joke that someone didn't consent to. It was a mistake but it wasn't that big of a deal. But yeah he did it and he apologized for it. That doesn't mean he needs to go to jail or resign. It's nice to see someone actually admit it and apologize for once.

[TexasBushwhacker]

38. No. I don't think he should resign either. N/t

[Trumpocalypse]

29. Here

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/opinions/al-franken-must-resign-opinion-perry/index.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/11/al_franken_should_resign_immediately.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/11/20/why-democrats-should-tell-al-franken-to-resign/?utm_term=.97fd9e176de5
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145901/al-franken-resign

[gollygee]

32. I hadn't read those

but it seems to be a minority opinion. I don't even think he should resign, unless we hear credible accounts of some more hurtful harassment than what I've heard about so far.

I should add that he actually admitted to some of this though so that's a bit different. Of course people will believe something if the person admits it and apologizes for it.

[moda253]

35. I don't think he admitted to anything other than being part of a bad joke.

He didn't admit to groping her and he didn't admit to the stupid kiss allegation.

He was however sympathetic to how his stupid joke would make her feel and admitted that he is ashamed of himself for it.

[gollygee]

64. The inappropriate joke is the "some of this" I was talking about

She said she was sleeping so she really would have no idea if he groped her or not. But he used her in a crude joke without her consent and that is a lower level creepy thing to do, but he gave a real apology and that seems like the appropriate response.

[CatMor]

5. Yes

[Not Ruth]

6. Innocent til proven guilty is not a real thing

DWI and domestic violence for example. Accusations of one cost you driving rights, the other gun rights.

[unblock]

11. not familiar with the intricacies of either, but isn't some evidence required?

and a conviction (possibly in the form of a guilty plea/deal)?

i.e., more than mere accusation?

[Not Ruth]

30. DWI

http://www.dwiguy.com/dwi-forfeiture-law/

In 1999, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani introduced a new automobile forfeiture policy that allowed the state to take the vehicles of those charged with drunk driving for the first time. Under this policy, DWI offenders can lose their cars even if they are found not guilty on the drunk-driving charge. This is because the forfeiture is a civil proceeding with a lesser burden of proof. The New York forfeiture policy is based on a city law (NYC Adm. Code 14-140) allowing police to impound and impose forfeiture of property used as an instrumentality in the commission of a crime.

Under the statute, the city of New York can seize a motor vehicle following an arrest for DWI or any other crime for which the vehicle could serve as an instrumentality. A defendant charged with DWI does not have a right to a post-arrest hearing to determine whether probable cause existed either for the drivers arrest or for the seizure of the vehicle. Under the statute, the DWI offender is not allowed the opportunity for a prompt post-seizure hearing to test probable cause for the seizure. Under present New York law, a challenge to the seizure and retention of the vehicle can not be made until the city of New York seeks the vehicle’s forfeiture in a separate civil proceeding, which might take place months or even years after the seizure. If a DWI offender makes a demand for the return of their vehicle, the city of New York has 20 days to either initiate a civil forfeiture or release the vehicle.

[Not Ruth]

34. This guy beat the gun laws by claiming to be stupid

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/95a1149p.txt


In January 1993, Pennsylvania authorities charged
Hayden with receiving stolen property and with the
unauthorized use of an automobile. Hayden received a copy
of the criminal information, and he signed a form
acknowledging receipt that was captioned, in capital
letters, "RECEIPT OF COPY OF INFORMATION." Below the caption
were the words, "I hereby certify that I have received a
copy of the information filed by the District Attorney in
the above-captioned action," and the accompanying document
states that "[t]he District Attorney of Allegheny County by
this information charges" Hayden with receiving stolen
property and unauthorized use of automobiles and other
vehicles.
A month after receiving the information, Hayden
went to a firearms dealer and inquired about purchasing a
pistol. The dealer told Hayden that there was a waiting
period and that the Allegheny County Sheriff's Office and
Pennsylvania State Police would be notified. Hayden then
asked about purchasing a rifle. In response, the dealer told
him he must give proper identification, be eighteen years of
age, and fill out a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Form 4473, which was subject to ATF inspection.
Hayden purchased an AK-47, a semiautomatic rifle
with a magazine capacity of one hundred rounds. He also
filled out a Form 4473 which defined the meaning of the
words "indictment" and "information" and inquired:
Are you under indictment or information*
in any court for a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year?
* A formal accusation of a crime made by
a prosecuting attorney, as distinguished
from an indictment presented by a grand
jury.

Hayden answered "no" to this question, even though Form 4473

twice warned that it was unlawful to answer any of the

questions falsely, stating that "[a]n untruthful answer may
subject you to criminal prosecution." Just above Hayden's
signature, the form provided the following certification:
I understand that a person who answers
"Yes" to any of the above questions is
prohibited from purchasing and/or
possessing a firearm, except as
otherwise provided by Federal Law. I
also understand that the making of any
false oral or written statement or the
exhibiting of any false or
misrepresented identification with
respect to this transaction is a crime
punishable as a felony.
The ATF ran a criminal history check on Hayden and
found the information pending in Allegheny County. Hayden
was indicted and charged with one count of violating 18
U.S.C.
§ 922(n), receiving a firearm while under an indictment or
information. At a non-jury trial, Hayden attempted to prove
that his low intelligence and reading ability prevented him
from understanding the document sent to him was an
"information" and that, in purchasing a gun, he did not know
he was violating the law. The district court prevented such
testimony from Hayden and his experts, ruling that the
government need not prove he knew he was violating the law.
Hayden was convicted and sentenced to eight months in
prison, three years of supervised release, and a $50 special
assessment.
II.
Hayden was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which
provides as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person
who is under indictment for a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year to ship or transport
in interstate or foreign commerce any
firearm or ammunition or receive any
firearm or ammunition which has been
shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce.
Section 922(n) has a corresponding penalty provision, found
in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(D), which provides:
(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in
this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or
(f) of this section, or in the section
929, whoever --

(D) willfully violates any other
provision of this chapter, shall be
fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
(emphasis added).
The district court had jurisdiction under 18
U.S.C. §3231 (1988). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291 (1988). Because § 924(a)(1)(D)'s willfulness language
involves statutory interpretation, our standard of review is
plenary. United States v. Meraz, 998 F.2d 182, 183 (3d Cir.
1993). We review the trial court's evidentiary rulings for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Sampson, 980 F.2d
883, 889 (3d Cir. 1992).

[unblock]

36. not to defend that law (because it's ridiculously draconian and easily abused),

but just to be clear, it seems there does have to be evidence (perhaps only preponderance rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, but still, not merely an accusation).

also, it's not the loss of the *right* to drive, it's the (possibly temporary) loss of the *car*. if i understand correctly, you can still drive another car (even if you have to borrow or rent one).

[pnwmom]

39. Yes, it is a "legal thing," and it's called "presumption of innocence." n/t

[cloudbase]

9. Yes, it's a legal principle.

Nobody has been incarcerated or been denied their rights.

If I owned or ran a company and an employee acted in such a way as to damage the company's reputation, I'd be inclined to no longer have them working for that company. Unless a person has a contract that specifically spells out termination procedures, they're pretty much considered at will employees, and can be terminated for whatever reason (or no reason at all) the employer deems applicable.

What's coming out aren't isolated instances, but a long-term pattern of unacceptable behavior.

[mcar]

10. The principle applies to the legal system

Not the rest of life. Roy Moore's victims will never have their day in court - does that mean we cannot say anything about his predatory behavior?

[ksoze]

12. The ones losing their jobs have admitted bad behavior

Classic "evidence" is going to be tough in these cases. Right now, the number and type of accusation seem to be the driver, as is an admission of guilt in some form.

[Igel]

47. Many admitted bad behaviors

that occurred years ago.

In this day and age, Senator Byrd would have been run out of town instead of defended. He had been in the KKK.

Used to be that change of heart could lead to forgiveness. No it's moral to say, "Oh, you did that 30 years ago? Tough, you need to be punished." Zero-tolerance with no statute of limitations.

[johnp3907]

13. No.

[unblock]

16. public images can be ethereal, based on smoke and mirrors, gone in a small breeze.

democratic political careers have been ruined because of a sigh, a photo in an over-sized helmet, or a snowflake near the eye.

celebrities also depend on public image, and it can be gone in a flash.

what's infuriating is that it's not remotely consistent.

violent ex-felon domestic abusers can play sports, mel gibson still has a career, a republican pedophile may yet get elected to the senate, but al franken's getting flak even for *consensual* photos with arianna huffington....

[Igel]

48. Of course it's not consistent.

It's because it's all public opinion, often based on rumor and hearsay and perceptions of likeability or usefulness to a cause.

Actual standards based on evidence are for somebody else, not most Americans.

Franken gets flak for consensual photos. Others get flak for obviously staged photos. Someplace I have a picture of me and friends taken 30 years ago with use dressed up wild-West style. I'm sure somebody would be offended at that, regardless of the age of the picture (or of me) or my actual intent.

[LanternWaste]

17. Have we abandoned the ability to recognize a court sentence from an opinion on the internet

Have we abandoned the ability to recognize a court sentence from an opinion on the internet, or the ability to distinguish between a judicial sentencing from niches within within the free market making branding adjustments to better maintain a profit share?

It seems that some are unwilling to recognize that pop culture and its inherent trends is different than a court case.

[maxsolomon]

18. Did Charlie Rose get charged with something?

Legal proof is not required for HR decisions. Trumpian denials don't fly at CBS and Rose knows it. Hell, they didn't even fly at Fox.

[Igel]

49. It's a bad precedent.

Fortunately, not one set in this century.

The HUAC/McCarthy hearings led to no trials.

Instead, private companies inflicted the punishment. Denials didn't fly in those corporations.

When you hear about the lives ruined by the HUAC hearings and McCarthyism, remember that.

[steve2470]

19. nope, and if someone is falsely accused....

they should vigorously defend themselves. Honest people should not be forced from their jobs if they have done nothing wrong.

[OnDoutside]

22. But that flies in the face of the mantra that "these women should be believed". Just think how

the media would go after anyone who said that "these women are lying". They'd go to town on him. That's where it's at now, rightly or wrongly.

[steve2470]

24. yes you are correct

Your best defense is your reputation based on past behavior. That's Senator Franken's salvation.

[OnDoutside]

26. Yes, 100%

[gollygee]

25. False dichotomy

You don't have to choose one or the other. You don't have to always believe every single accuser, but women should generally be believed as much as men are when they make accusations. If a man accused someone of doing something bad to him, people wouldn't decide for sure how they felt without looking into it more, but they wouldn't just blow it off as most likely a lie either. That, however, is how women have generally been treated, and it isn't OK.

[OnDoutside]

41. That's the way it certainly should work but the frenzy at the moment

is not allowing for that. Those op eds today may be the first step to allowing a bit of reason enter the debate.

[Iggo]

55. I believe who I believe and I don't who I don't.

But I tell you what, I'm not going to disbelieve a woman because she showed her boobs this other time.

[OnDoutside]

57. We'll that's reassuring.

[frazzled]

21. This isn't about a criminal or even civil trial

The charges that have been lodged by the women against the accused have been researched by professional journalists and found to be credible, based on multiple sourcing. (I'd say the exception is the Al Franken case, which does not even begin to rise to the level of the Weinstein and Roses and Louis CKs anyway, to the extent that neither of the two accusers was an employee or prospective job applicant, and an alleged pach on the tuchas during a photo snap or an ill-advised photo for a comedy shtick is not the work of a serial abuser, even if true; and Al Franken is not going to lose his job).

Employers don't have to prove guilt. They only have an obligation to assess the accusations (and believe me, large numbers already knew for many years) and to stop enabling and protecting the predators. You can get fired for taking home office supplies or sending lewd jokes or just about any reason, or no reason. Employees and job applicants need protection too.

My last point is this: sexual assault is almost never something that can be documented or corroborated directly: there were only two people there. So testimony from friends or family to whom the victim spoke at the time are about the best you will ever get. If you demand iron-clad proof, there will never be any escape from this predatory behavior ... and women will continue to suffer abuse and psychological damage and--most important--loss of jobs or career opportunities.

So while you cry for these men who have lost their jobs after decades of acclaim and millions of dollars earned, take a little time for those interns and job applicants who lost or never got their jobs because they spurned advances from powerful men.

[brush]

23. Funny you should say that since you were backing Gillibrand saying Clinton should've resigned

[FSogol]

27. Trial by Social Media! You are gulity until the next thing comes along.

[Panho]

28. You make a good point

We tend to believe accusations too quickly.

[fescuerescue]

40. It's a requirement from the governments viewpoint

for adjudication and justice.

But individuals? We are free to make any judgement we want based on anything we want.

[Trumpocalypse]

45. So no evidence is required.

Believe over facts.

[fescuerescue]

50. correct.

Personal opinions are derived from whatever criteria one wants to choose. Including no criteria at all.

[Trumpocalypse]

53. Explains Trump supporters

Sadly I thought we were better than that. Guess I was wrong.

[NCTraveler]

42. I have never adhered to that policy in my personal life.

It would be ignorant to do so. That includes in my professional career.

[Irish_Dem]

43. It is called the court of public opinion and we have a right to our opinions.

And most of us can tell the difference between cranked up accusations and the real deal.
Many women coming forward with credible accounts is pretty damning.

[blueinredohio]

44. That's more or less what I said on another post. How do guys prove it if they didn't do it. He said

she said

[Kaleva]

46. Who has lost their job because of flimsy evidence of sexual misbehaviour?

[blueinredohio]

63. I didn't say anything about losing their job

[Kaleva]

65. The OP did and you more or less agreed with it.

[Joe941]

51. I think Moore has been more than proven guilty.

[Iggo]

54. Last time I checked, it's still going strong in our courts.

Check out all them innocent cops acquitted of murdering unarmed black people.

[marylandblue]

56. Two words: Her emails

[crosinski]

58. You asked us as a group, and that's difficult.

Because we're individuals, so there are probably as many variations of answers to your question as there are members of this forum.

I do try to keep the principle of innocent until proven guilty in mind in my personal life, but it's really hard when my buttons have been pushed. And sometimes, you just have to go with your gut. So, yeah, life as it's happening is messy and mistakes are made. That's why we have courts.

[treestar]

61. Not in the courts, but for all other purposes

Yes.

[NYC Liberal]

62. IMO, the evidence isnt so flimsy. I guarantee these various companies

(CBS, Netflix, etc) knew about the behavior for a long time but simply did nothing until it became public.