Comment by foldr

Comment by foldr 4 days ago

8 replies

We're allowed to form judgments about people based on evidence that wouldn't be sufficient to convict them of a crime. The consequences of me forming the opinion that this guy is a domestic abuser are far lower than the consequences of a court doing so. And of course, even courts use a much lower evidential standard than 'innocent until proven guilty' when deciding civil cases. Making a derogatory comment about someone on the internet is much more analogous to a civil court finding against the plaintiff than it is to a criminal court giving someone a jail sentence.

In any case, HN is very selective about this high evidential standard. People will make a lot of effort to give probable domestic abusers the benefit of the doubt, but pick one of HN's official enemies and suddenly any little scrap of evidence is considered quite sufficient!

catigula 4 days ago

I agree with this sentiment but I'm also willing to explore/consider the possibility that "innocent until proven guilty" isn't strictly only useful as an esoteric legal construct, but a philosophy that could potentially have applicability to an individual's worldview.

That being said I wouldn't have much patience for a "merely" accused murderer or child predator in my personal life, just as I also don't have much patience for a doctor who refuses to prescribe me antibiotics because the chance they could help me is "only" 1%. I don't really care that it's socially irresponsible when it comes to my personal assessment of risk.

  • nilamo 4 days ago

    I agree that it is nice to keep in mind as a general philosophy, however I also think it's important to keep in mind that the people who originally wrote "innocent until proven guilty" were all treasonous sepratists, and their philosophy may or may not always align with my own.

    • foldr 4 days ago

      Not sure if that's supposed to be a reference to the Founding Fathers, but it's erroneous if so. The presumption of innocence long predates the American Revolution.

    • eru 4 days ago

      Yes, violent insurrection against the lawful authority of the Crown is no laughing matter. (And many of them were slaveowners, so they did not have moral authority neither by the standards of their day nor by ours.)

      • catigula 4 days ago

        It's ambiguous. The concept of slavery being bad was quite novel and mostly comes from English philosophy/legal theory which America has a direct lineage from.

eru 4 days ago

Yes, different fora have different standards of evidence. That's only normal.

Civil cases are probably the best (counter) example to bring up, because they also involve a judge and lawyers etc.