Once again. What the community thinks of you isn't a concern for the government or the law. Do you think the courts should get involved every time there is some gossip about some celebrity? How about if somebody is filmed as they trip on the crosswalk and the community makes fun of them for being clumsy? What if they are slovenly and the community thinks they smell?

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If someone is accused of a crime, we afford them the dignity to have their trial before judgement is passed.

This is not a controversial position to take.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue for here.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If someone is accused of a crime, we afford them the dignity to have their trial before judgement is passed

Absolutely.

This is not a controversial position to take.

No it's not.

I’m not really sure what you are trying to argue for here.

That me being able to judge the character and morals of somebody is different than the courts judging those things.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ok, so lets speculate here.

Let us say, that you are accused of a crime, that you didn't do! There isn't a lot of hard evidence either way. Also assume it is fairly serious, not murder/pedo stuff; but more like indecent assault/putting someone in hospital; it happened years in the past.

After a lengthily trial and digging into the past; you are found not guilty, but not in a resounding victory kinda way. More like the balance of probability way.

You seem to be advocating for; the public knowing the details of the trial during the trial. Given as much time to speculate on your innocence/guilt as they want.

Potential employers; in the future can look you up and see there was a lot of speculation about if you did/didn't do the crime; and rather than risk it, just don't bother calling you back, even though you are completely innocent.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 months ago

You seem to be advocating for; the public knowing the details of the trial during the trial. Given as much time to speculate on your innocence/guilt as they want.

Yes.

Potential employers; in the future can look you up and see there was a lot of speculation about if you did/didn’t do the crime; and rather than risk it, just don’t bother calling you back, even though you are completely innocent.

Sure. Just like they can look at your old facebook posts and decide they don't like you. You were found not guilty and if they are going to hold that against you there is nothing you can do. Just like if they are going to hold it against you because you have an accent, or a name they can't pronounce, or the fact that you wore black socks with sneakers. I have seen HR people throw CVs in the trash because the name was foreign and there was already a pile of candidates with names like John or Steven.

The public is going to judge you no matter what you do and you can't prevent them from doing so. The jury is supposed to presume not guilty, evaluate the evidence presented to them and decide whether the weight of the evidence should shift that presumption to guilty. Most cases are probably decided on probabilities but the jury doesn't tell you what degree of confidence they have in the verdict. It's either guilty or not guilty and it's unanimous.