Hacker News Reader

One problem with this type of "trial by media" is that the bar for convicting someone is set quite arbitrarily, and is influenced more by rhetoric and media attention than hearing of all parties involved and carefully weighing evidence (not saying that necessarily applies to this particular story).

Also note that published stories like these are a vastly different ballgame than the usual person-to-person type of gossip that affects partnering and hiring choices.

A civil suit is another scenario where people are supposed to carefully weigh evidence under oath, yet no one says “I am withholding judgment until a preponderance of the evidence is in favor of guilt.”

"There's more than enough evidence about this person specifically, and in most cases, for me/you to feel fine never associating with this person, or working with an organization he's involved with, ever again, even if a court of law never gets involved".

Not least of all, written admission of crime by the accused himself, in addition to corroboration of several incidents of assault by the news outlet. How is the question of innocence is still being bandied when the accused has already admitted his guilt?!! Equally absurd are the futile attempts to foist standards of criminal courts on that of public opinion despite the significant differences between both systems that you noted.

I would argue that, it's a high bar to meet to convict a guilty person. But the lowest possible bar to avoid convicting innocent people. At least in theory.

People falsely assume that that standard is one of absolute scientific certainty. It is not. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt simply means that no reasonable person would come to any other conclusion than that of guilt.

To assume that guilt beyond any reasonable doubt as an absolute, scientific and completely infallible standard demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the legal system. The system may be flawed and cases may or may prosecuted for the reasons that were mentioned but many of those reasons like available resources have little if anything to do with the standard of proof that must be brought to trial.

Individuals can be prosecuted on very paltry evidence and even convicted if reasonable people find that evidence to be sufficient.

To believe that any lower standard of proof is needed to prosecute individuals is to pander to mob mentality that just because most people want to find someone guilty means we should find them guilty.

This burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is set in place precisely to avoid such legal lynching proceedings

The gp never made this assumption, you're making it for them.

It's still not the same standard as the one society needs. The state wields a big hammer, and such it has relatively high standards. Us, individual society members, wield a tiny mallet, and as such we should feel more free to wield that than the state does. As the gp notes, we already do in many cases.

The courts should really be the last resort for this stuff; society should be dealing with it cleanly before it ever gets there.

I never claimed the Gp made any assumption to begin with. Beyond any reasonable doubt means precisely that. It can vary from person to person and from group to group. The state is indeed very powerful compared to the individual. But the mighty hammer you speak of simply implies that the state can bring more resources to bear when prosecuting. This only means in principle that the state can drag a trial longer (and from which we are protected by the right to a speedy trial) or that they can expend more effort gathering evidence against an accused.

Your argument about individual members of society however is, with respect, flawed. The masses of society, when all working towards a common goal are not tiny droplets in the pond but indeed the mighty torrent that can sweep away even so powerful an entity as the state. To advocate for a lower standard of evidence based on the fact that "everyone knows he is guilty" is, as mentioned, to advocate for a trial system based on mob mentality. Furthermore, public opinion can can be easily swayed by what is reported to it and I will spare this thread the question of the media or powerful individuals like Trump or Russia or Clinton etc using the media to subvert public opinion.

The system again may not be perfect but it is there to protect not only from the might of the state but also from the dictatorship of the masses which may, unlike the court system, have their own reasons for convicting someone, reasons which may not even have anything to do with the actual matter. This is even more problematic as the court system is at least subject to review and appeal whereas the masses have absolutely no check on them.

That is reasonable for individuals. But it's on here, in Google, lots of other sites -- millions of people who had never heard of him now form an opinion of him based on this article (or just the comments, or the headline). It's probably career destroying.

That's in effect more like jail time than like some individuals shunning him.

What about the careers of those abused by him? I'm sure the social shun and stigma of being a sexual abuse victim can be more career-destroying than that of being the perpetrator. Just look at POTUS.

A career is not a right. The ability to access food, water, and shelter—life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—are rights. I hope he gets a job and a roof over his head. I don't hope he gets any more glowing profiles in the media.

There are plenty of careers I'm more worried about than his, starting with those of his victims, and probably continuing to those who could have been famous hackers were it not for the accidents of their birth.

the right for a fair trial with a Presumption of innocence IS A RIGHT. trial by media does not honor that right.

No, there is no right to a fair "trial by media". Quite the opposite in fact: restricting the media to a government-defined standard of "fair" would infringe upon a free press. In general, the free press is most important when it is reporting on a legal situation that opposes the government's narrative.

The right about trials is about a fair trial by the government, and is a check on the government's power to punish.

NO, I disagree the right of a fair trial holds regardless of the system. it's about the accused not the system. otherwise lynch mobs would be justified.

Being publicly criticized for your actions is not the same as being lynched. Please stop.

A lynch mob is not justified because a lynch mob goes on to enact punishment, usually via hanging, which is murder.

If you are using the word "lynch mob" in a rhetorical way to refer to people who are not depriving you of life, liberty, or property, arguments about actual lynch mobs do not apply. A so-called "lynch mob" that merely has opinions about you and does not do anything to you is not unjust any more than a high school mock trial club is unjust. A so-called "lynch mob" that has opinions about you and goes on to do entirely legal things, like exert their free speech rights to publish their opinions about you, is not unjust, either.

responding now might be inappropriate but for the record: one of the main premises of my response is that public ostracization is used as a form of punishment. ( I stated if in one of the previous comments).

historical data support my claim as wikipedia points: "Public humiliation is the dishonoring showcase of a person, usually an offender or a prisoner, especially in a public place. It was regularly used as a form of punishment in former times, and is still practiced by different means in the modern era."

"Trial by media" is not an actual trial, it's a term made up by people who don't like how the media is covering things.

I'm not sure that I follow. My point is that credible allegations of repeated rape and sexual assault should be career destroying even if they are not met with a guilty sentence in a court of law. I could not in good conscience let this person near my coworkers or colleagues for fear for their own physical safety. I don't need a court to send him to jail to make that assessment.

If you commit or admit to crimes in a non-privileged context (when talking to your therapist, doctor, lawyer, chaplain) then you have to deal with whatever consequences ensue. Nobody owes you discretion.

So, if someone comes along, who has been seen entering a closed room alone with you, and claims to have been raped repeatedly by you - should we stop associating with you? If a previously consensual encounter is later claimed to be non-consensual, should we ensure that you never get a job again in the tech industry?

Perhaps "convicted in court" is a too high of bar to you, but given the fact that people do lie about being sexually assaulted, perhaps the bar of "being accused means you did it" is a bit too low.

Ultimately it's up to each individual to decide the proper position of their bar, and perhaps this guy did indeed do it (personally, I don't care)... but the current trend of taking the accusers word as an actionable truth is troubling.

> perhaps this guy did indeed do it (personally, I don't care)

You might want to elaborate on this - it sounds like you don't care even if you think someone is a rapist, but I hope that's not your position? That's a really low bar.

Acting on information is not the same as believing it. You can act on something while still maintaining the possibility the information is wrong. Even a 51% probability can be acted on to good effect sometimes.