Hacker News Reader

Comment by Planktonne | Hacker News Reader

MLK famously said 'a riot is the language of the unheard'; if you want people to avoid social pressure (note: not a lynch mob -- no physical harm), you have to give them a better, fairer alternative.

A functioning justice system for sex crime accusations would be amazing; for valid reasons, a lot of people do not trust that this exists.

View on HN

Doesn't matter how you dress it up, persecuting someone on the basis of absolutely no evidence other than victim testimony is, for all practical purposes, the modern equivalent of pointing at the witch and shrieking.

> A functioning justice system for sex crime accusations would be amazing; for valid reasons, a lot of people do not trust that this exists.

They have no valid reasons. No system is perfect. Claiming that the system getting it wrong 1 out of every 1000 times is a valid reason is just stupid; no system is perfect.

There was a system for the witch trials as well; the accusations were just the starting point for the sham trials, torture, and executions. Are you okay with that because it was a system, even if imperfect?

Our justice system doesn't fail 1 in a 1000 times, particularly when talking about sex crimes. It fails far more frequently than that, given the prevalence of sexual assault and the rarity of convictions [1]. Additionally, there's an aspect that justice must be seen to be done: high profile repeat offenders walking free damages confidence in the system out of proportion to their frequency.

As above, if you want people to use a system, the system has to work.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/the-s...

> Are you okay with that because it was a system, even if imperfect?

What makes you think I'm okay with the current system? Upthread I even said "if you are unhappy with the way things are, petition to change them instead of mobbing".

Just because I hold the opinion that evidence matters does not mean that I am a bad person.

I haven't said I think you're a bad person; it's bold to accuse someone of a misreading based on your own misreading.

People aren't required to only critique a system using the tools that system provides; progress is often made when people step outside of the system (e.g. Rosa Parks) rather than quietly accepting it. There's evidence for that in countless civil rights campaigns.

There are a good number of what many would consider heinous behaviors that are not crimes. Even if our current system of justice worked perfectly, we would still be left with a basket of people who no one wanted to be associated with, but whom had, legally at least, "done nothing wrong."

Do you have a solution to that that doesn't involve limiting freedom of association and speech?

"freedom of association" and "freedom of speech" are governmental concepts, used to limit the behaviors of governments.

They are not some core, universal rights that every individual must respect when interacting with other individual.

The accused in this case absolutely still has the citizen rights of association and speech. He can gather with people and he can publish his thoughts. The fact that a bunch of individuals have decided they don't want to gather with him is in no way a reduction of his rights.

To be clear, I agree with you -- that was the point I was making.

There's no right to being accepted, and no right to make people approve of your actions.

It's not actually a problem in society that needs fixing if people decide not to associate with someone on the basis of their behaviour.

I agree with you too.

It's not a problem you can, or should, solve legally.

Alternatively you could identify the minority of people who tend to start riots and exclude them from society since they're almost always outsiders who resent being outsiders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com