All the recent news stories on various "Karen" interactions come to mind.
So, two thoughts:
- People react to bad actors exactly because there is no other corrective mechanism than shaming.
- I don't know where this notion of "forever pariah" came from. Seems to me nearly every high profile case of someone being "canceled" is actually a more of an "embarrassed pause" - they got called out for being horrible, maybe lost their job, and... are back a year or so later.
Where are the hordes of cancelled people who got a life sentence? Did we start a Misfit Island they're all banished to when I was looking?
There aren't "hordes" of people who have had their life ruined just because there were AP articles written about minor felonies they were accused of.
I think its fine to either be strict on both or forgiving on both, but something about the internal inconsistency really annoys me.
This means that you cannot earn forgiveness through contrition, because contrition is no longer the qualifying factor.
What you're calling social contexts isn't an organic situation. Society didn't decide the context, so much as the context desired by some has been cherry picked and amplified.
Dissenters are ostracized, then the alternative is proclaimed as what society has decided.
It's the social version of communist "elections," where you can vote for whatever candidate you want, as long as it's a communist one.
But if you said something on twitter, or were caught on camera doing something repugnant, there's not really much plausible deniability.
When it comes to things like sexual harassment, where there's no direct proof, people generally get the benefit of the doubt a few dozen times.
Additionally - everything you could say about police making up incidents on a report is the same for someone being sued re: harassment or whatever. If you are suing for legitimate issue X, any lawyer will tell you to play up additional incidents that will look bad in the press even if you don't have evidence for when it would go to arbitration/trial.
But the trend itself has more than a little political tilt, while the cause for any particular case often doesn't.
The downside of these laws is, in the case of arrests, it makes disappearing people easier.
If police is corrupt and want someone to disappear they just won't create arrest records. US police was using black-sites where people disappeared without problem.
On the other hand public arrest record put a great opportunity for malice and blackmail - do what I want or I'll arrest you for allegedly molesting a minor. Charges will be dropped but good luck clearing your name ever. Now pay up.
Departments routinely doing this get caught. (They have.)
Of course if it’s corrupt all the way up you’re screwed. But the aim is to create grappling points for the Feds and state Attorneys General on e.g. city cops. Showing a pattern of undocumented arrests or of the arrested going missing is easier when arrest records are public.
It’s a tradeoff between the power of the state over the public versus the power of the public over itself.
Companies which are owed mortgage/rent and credit card/cell phone/insurance bills etc. will do their utmost to make sure the person isn't actually disappeared or deceased.
On the other hand, I'm sure an insurance company got paid.
Even in that case, the internet now never forgets. One small mistake when young can impact one's future significantly. The memory of humanity of a whole continues to expand exponentially. Could lead to some interesting outcomes.
Doesn't acquittal require going to trial? Or do you mean the charges were dropped before trial?