Hacker News Reader

Comment by abxyz | Hacker News Reader

Yes, it is. The courts are flawed, the courts get things wrong all the time. Many innocent people are found guilty. If we must apply the legal standard to internet comments, must we condemn people we believe to be innocent? The legal standards exist for the system, not for people. Saying that the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" should apply outside of the legal system is lazy and avoiding making decisions for yourself about how you treat people.

People proven guilty are not necessarily guilty. People proven not guilty are not necessarily innocent. The legal standard exists because a system needs standards.

View on HN

>The courts are flawed, the courts get things wrong all the time.

Is your assertion that random internet commenters get it right more than the courts...?

>"innocent until proven guilty" should apply outside of the legal system is lazy

How is guilty until proven innocent less "lazy"?

My assertion is that "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard that applies to the courts because a system needs standards. People have the luxury of being able to use their judgement. My assertion is that choosing to defer to a legal standard (not proven guilty therefore innocent) is choosing to opt-out of your wonderful human ability to form a judgement based on a lot more than just one single data point.

The person you love comes to you and tells you that they've been attacked by your shady friend. Do you defend your friend from the accusation because "they're innocent until proven guilty" or do you use your judgement and decide that the person you love is telling the truth because you have a lifetime of trust in them?

> Saying that the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" should apply outside of the legal system is lazy and avoiding making decisions for yourself about how you treat people.

Then how do you explain laws against slander and libel?

You can't label someone guilty of a crime just because you feel it to be true.

"People proven guilty are not necessarily guilty. People proven not guilty are not necessarily innocent. The legal standard exists because a system needs standards."

so you saying that court is useless because its not perfet???? its easy to complaint about something but give NOTHING to improve it

You would not do better than people in charge because EASY to say something is wrong but you dont have ANSWER that improve this current standards

I'm saying that the judgement of a court is useless when making a personal judgement because what a court sets out to do is different to what a human sets out to do. The court system is a collection of complicated and convoluted standards and rules and regulations designed specifically to support a system responsible for depriving people of their rights. A court judgement is not "better" than a human judgement, quite the opposite, a court judgement is often worse, because court judgements are formed without access to all information. A jury for example will often have very important information withheld from them because it doesn't satisfy some esoteric court standard. A person would use that information to form a judgement.

this is dunning kruger effect

Reply on news.ycombinator.com