Hacker News Reader

> Imagine that you were convicted of murder

OP points out that we have criminal courts for a reason - he's not comparing this scenario with an actual conviction after a trial with presumed innocence. In your analogy, it would have to be common for people to be fired from their jobs (and blackballed from entire industries) on the strength of a murder accusation that hasn't even been presented to the police, much less been through a trial.

John Wayne Gacy was convicted in a criminal court of law, with rules, where he was presumed innocent until proven guilty.

You attempt to draw a connection, but it's a false analogy out of the gate.

I mostly agree with the point you're making, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the jury actually really presumed Gacy innocent at the start of his trial.

Like everyone, they were certainly biased toward assuming his guilt in the run-up to the trial.

No system is perfect, and humans are fallible. But that's kinda the underlying issue with this entire discussion: if she had gone to the authorities (especially if only years after the incident in question, and also consider that the incident happened in a different country), would there be any legal remedy here? I think it's pretty likely that nothing material would have come of that.

> bit of a stretch to assume that the jury actually really presumed Gacy innocent at the start of his trial.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me and juries are explicitly picked so they aren’t familiar with cases before trial. If a potential juror knew of Gacy, they would be excluded.

> Therefore the court of public opinion is the only court that has solid jurisdiction, so to speak.

based on what his public info shows about his location this medium post (and the ensuing public outrage) cops in that country will have to press charges (in case they haven't been pressed already).

There is a high chance he is a flight risk so they will book him, _unless_:

  - he is actually a passport holder of that country (doesn't seem the case), and 
  - has a proper address registered as is law, (many Brits don't care since British law doesn't require it)
  - has a strong social family network in that country, (unlikely)
  - has a job in that country (contracting/freelancing doesn't count here)

... then he is looking forward to spending 6 months minimum in "Untersuchungshaft" (hard time) or for whatever length of time investigations are ongoing (until trial).

What I'm getting at is that this is a very serious allegation that _will_ result in hard time if convicted but also until he actually gets his day in court! But for that to happen she needs to do more than a Medium post (make a statement with the cops which can be scary but shouldn't be if she actually brings a lawyer). In case she doesn't then it needs to be considered a character assassination which itself is a felony. In any case posting such a piece is legally risky for her and if she would have bothered getting a lawyer, they most certainly would have advised her against it. The best option for her would be to go through the court system of where he is currently located.

Most other options have a high risk of this going nowhere (cost + extradition etc) and even give more room for speculation and he-said-she-said which shouldn't (imho) be the goal of the metoo movement and indeed it should be called out for mob-justice.

I think there are a few problems with this:

Another commenter mentions somewhere here that the specific thing that happened may not have been illegal in Germany then (but is now). I don't know how to verify that as I don't speak German.

This happened several years ago; there is no physical evidence that remains. This, as you allude to, is a he-said-she-said situation. I assume there are emails/texts/etc. that might speak to Pretty's poor character and ill intent, but that's not much. In the US this would almost certainly not be enough for a conviction. Maybe it would be in Germany or the UK, but I suspect not.

Agree that she may have opened herself up to legal liability (at least an accusation of libel or defamation). As I recall, in the UK it is harder than in the US to defend oneself in court against accusations of libel.

It is possible, though, that Pretty might be dissuaded from bringing any legal action because doing so will only draw more attention to his bad behavior, and could result in a worse situation for him than just going and hiding under a rock for a few years.

> there is no physical evidence that remains

not needed, she has plenty of people who can coroborate her story and even somebody who stepped forward as another victim. impossible to ignore under German law.

> Maybe it would be in Germany or the UK, but I suspect not.

it is most certainly prosecuted in Germany as I've indicated. I can't promise he'll get a conviction but he certainly would get his time in "U-Haft" given he presents a flight risk.

I agree that the chances of Pretty having the stomache to come after her with libel charges are remote. But if what she says is the truth then she shouldn't have anything to fear. She has people who said this happened to them too and others who saw things. It would all be very hard to ignore.

You are conflating conviction with mere, non-legal accusation.

Conviction means someone made an accusation at a legal level, then it was considered worthy by police, then by a country's prosecution service, then by a jury, and then (probably) by an appeals court too. Under normal circumstances, that's a bar infinitely higher than, "I'm claiming to have a story about someone."

I think there’s a crucial point that you missed:

“...there is a court and criminal justice system for a reason”

John Wayne Gacy was convicted in a court via the criminal justice system. As a society, we have chosen this as our mechanism for adjudicating these types of accusations, and that mechanism has evolved certain safeguards over time. It’s not perfect, but it is a far fairer venue to be tried in than the “court of public opinion”. That’s not an insignificant point, and you’re glossing over it entirely.

No, because Gacy was accused of things that were actually illegal, whereas much of what Pretty was accused of is clearly not illegal, just shitty. So, as I said in my comment and hardly “glossed over,” the court of public opinion (and the possibility of social / professional sanction) are entirely appropriate!

This idea that individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures, or report on their own experiences with public figures, is so painfully stupid that I find it astonishing that you are arguing in good faith. This is not something you would actually believe in other contexts (say, if a CEO is accused of verbal abuse).

> This idea that individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures, or report on their own experiences with public figures, is so painfully stupid that I find it astonishing that you are arguing in good faith.

Then maybe you should step back and consider the possibility that you are misunderstanding the point and arguing with a straw man. I never at any point said that “individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures”, and I don’t think you’re acting in good faith by interpreting me as such.

I’m not saying the court of public opinion is the wrong venue for this sort of thing; I’m saying the court of public opinion is, by any reasonable standard, a kangaroo court, and we should exercise much more caution and skepticism toward its judgments than we exercise towards the judgments made by a court of law. Keeping this caution in mind is, in fact, what distinguishes a measured application of social/professional sanction from outright “mob justice”.

I'd never heard of that guy, so to save others the trouble, in 1980 he was found "guilty of 33 charges of murder; he was also found guilty of sexual assault and taking indecent liberties with a child" and was executed by the USA in 1994.

All true, but you forgot the money shot:

“A clown can get away with murder.” —John Wayne Gacy

John Wayne Gacy, often called the "Killer Clown," was one of the worst serial killers in U.S. history, raping and murdering at least 33 young male victims.

https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/john-wayne-gacy

John Waters hangs one of John Wayne Gacy's infamous clown paintings on the wall of his guest room, so his guests never stay too long.

Politically Incorrect with John Waters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7zFp7CaJqE&ab_channel=lurie...

Chilling paintings by ‘killer clown’ John Wayne Gacy expected to sell for £7,000 each

https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/09/chilling-paintings-by-killer-...

Someone should coin a law for this phenomenon: Every single time a ~~woman~~ victim makes a public statement like this, in the comment sections a man must be discussing false accusations or the court of public opinion. I don't think I've ever not seen this.

People who are abused are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

edit: removed specific gender

edit2: I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. This is a phenomenon that I've noticed over the years.

It's also a completely false argument since there's libel and slander laws. If the accused was innocent, they would simply sue the false accuser. That they don't says everything.

The barrier and punishment for coming forward as a victim of sexual abuse, rape or harassment is great indeed. Questioning every case is ignorance of existing laws setup to handle any false accusations.

Not trying to sue someone for slander doesn't actually say anything.

There's a lot of factors. How much will it cost? How much publicity will it generate and is that worse than just letting it go? What is the standard of proof that must be met and are they confident they can prove that it's a false statement? What are the consequences if they somehow fail to meet that burden? Etc.

Also, how did the left become the party of "if he's in the courtroom he must be guilty of something"?

So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word?

If someone wants to clear their name, go to court and sue for slander. If it's two people's word against each other, I'll believe the victim every time since there's such a high cost of coming forward and slander laws exist.

EDIT Since I'm now throttled...

I'm saying that coming forward either means:

1. Something really happened to you.

2. You're breaking the law and can be punished.

High stakes, no? Which is one of the many reasons false accusations are exceedingly rare if not non-existent.

I will always believe the victim unless the perpetrator wins a libel case. It's the legal mechanism for fighting back.

> So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word?

Not the person to whom you're replying, but the presumption of innocence means this exactly. If you are accused of a crime, you are presumed innocent until it can be proven you're not.

So are you saying that victims (of slander) must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators (of slander) should be taken at their word?

The sword cuts both ways.

Except it doesn't, because if you're in the news for {serious crime} and later clear your name, your reputation is still probably trashed. There is no real mechanism for recovery in the modern panopticon. Lowering standards of evidence required for conviction (to basically nothing, if some people are taken seriously) is such a kludgy, cumbersome hack to solve this problem that it shocks me that people present it seriously. It's utopian thinking.

So in your judgement, a person who is accused is guilty if they don't retaliate with a slander/libel lawsuit? Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, lawyers and filing lawsuits might be expensive, prohibitively so?

The "existing laws setup to handle any false allegations" exist only for accusations made in the court system.

It's amazing to me how little thought people like you have behind your beliefs. You basically just regurgitate what you heard from your college electives with zero mindfulness or introspection.

> The "existing laws setup to handle any false allegations" exist only for accusations made in the court system.

This is wrong though.

> Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, lawyers and filing lawsuits might be expensive, prohibitively so?

Indeed, and reporting a crime, and ensuring it is handled appropriately by a police force is also exceedingly costly, though perhaps not financially.

Significant portions of your post violate the HN guidelines.

That's not how libel and slander works. You not only have to prove that the statements were false, but that the accuser knew they were false and was deliberately malicious in spreading the falsehoods

If it's hard to demonstrably prove actual cases of sexual assault, doesn't it follow that it would be as hard, if not harder, to prove the negative?

And people who are accused are damned, period. I can see why mob justice can sometimes be the only options for victims, but the abuse potential is massive.

By the way, I see no reason a woman or a trans person could not make this statement.

"but the abuse potential is massive."

I think people grossly exaggerate this. We have libel and slander laws. Individual companies aside, entire communities of people aren't that stupid. In my opinion, this is a really pessimistic view of people and also not based in reality in my experience.

At the end of the day, we need to be able to listen to victims. The amount of fake accusers compared to real victims is microscopic.

"And people who are accused are damned, period."

Not really. There are literally countless examples of accusations/allegations and nothing happening to people for whatever reason, usually influence/popularity.

I should note that my brother thought exactly the way you did, before this happened to him. Just an FYI.

He didn't move to Portland randomly. He's the most liberal of the liberal. Just remember that you almost never hear media coverage of accusations that turn out to be false. You just hear about the accusations when they are first made. Do you think the coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case was equally high after the accusations were proven to be fabricated?

> I think people grossly exaggerate this. We have libel and slander laws.

Yeah, but think about how those work. (IANAL).

If I can convince enough people that you are an awful person, I can ruin your reputation. As a recourse, you can sue me for defamation. But once you do that, we’ve switched sides—now I am the defendant and you are the accuser. Unlike a criminal defendant, the defendant in the court of public opinion never enjoys a presumption of innocence. Instead, he has to carry that burden of proof through a civil lawsuit just to clear his name.

> Individual companies aside, entire communities of people aren't that stupid.

If that’s true, why bother with courts of law in the first case? If the mob is capable of adjudicating questions of guilt or innocence, we’re wasting a lot of money on lawyers as a society.

>"I think people grossly exaggerate this. We have libel and slander laws."

I don't understand what those laws have to do with this? As if they somehow protect a potentially innocent party from incorrect accusations? At what point would an accusation such as the one in the blog post even constitute as libel/slander?

We need to be able to listen to accusers. We also need to be able to evaluate the accusations honestly. If it's taboo to express doubt or skepticism of accusations of sexual impropriety, then that isn't functional either.

I think you've got the phenomenon backwards: when people are skeptical of a murder accusation or an alleged robbery, it's accepted as part of normal discourse. But showing skepticism of allegations of sexual impropriety is not.

Right. I think it's reasonable to be doubtful if there is only one accuser, and the accused can provide hard evidence refuting at least some of the accuser's claims.

But when several people stand up to make accusations, and there's a bunch of corroboration, it's hard to wonder if skeptics are skeptical out of bad faith, even subconsciously. I'm not sure we've passed this threshold with Pretty, but two accusations, as well as some others corroborating parts of the stories, is starting to look pretty compelling.

I'm curious to know what Pretty's response will be, but I think he already has a steep uphill climb.

There's also the possibility that you believe the testimony of the accusers, but what they allege is not sexual assault. What exactly is Pretty being accused of? The two women's statements talk a lot about how their relationship with Pretty left them feeling used and objectified. But they're pretty sparse when it comes to detailing an actual instance of sexual assault. This is where Vic describes her relationship with Pretty:

> What followed was an on-and-off long-distance relationship in late 2015-2017. He visited me on his terms when it was convenient for his nomadic lifestyle. I quickly grew to feel isolated and objectified by him. As a non-native English speaker, I often felt manipulated, but I found it hard to articulate why. He wanted to constantly monitor my activities. He habitually criticized my lifestyle choices and diminished my self-esteem.

Pretty only wanted casual sex at his convenience, and his relationship with Vic left her feeling criticized. A bad boyfriend? Sure. A sex crime? Not even remotely. Yifan's allegation that Pretty had sex with her when she was drunk comes closer, but she's still vague about it.

I don't think Pretty really has much of a hill to climb. I believe the allegations, but at the same time I believe Pretty is innocent of any crime. He probably seeks out inexperienced women, and presents greater commitment than he really harbors. Scummy? Yeah. Criminal? No. Worthy of ostracism? Maybe, but I'd want to hear his side of the story first.