Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
A jury being unable to be sure of guilt beyond reasonable doubt does not mean he is innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.
How many people do you need to come forward before you believe them? Is the number of men required more or less than the number of women required? Do teenagers count double or not at all? Or does the number depend entirely on the quality of their legal defence and the amount of physical evidence they left behind?
It's not a numbers thing, it's a facts thing. That's just how criminal justice works (or is supposed to). So to address your second paragraph―the number of people and whether they are men, women, or otherwise is entirely irrelevant. If someone can be proven to have done wrong, they did wrong, period. I'm not stating I agree or disagree with his acquittal, I was just making sure I hadn't missed some news that he had, in fact, been found guilty. I'm well aware that wealthy people and, in particular, powerful men get unfair advantages in the criminal justice system.
That is not how criminal justice is supposed to work. Scottish law has attempted to make it work a little bit like that but it's not a good solution.
There is no mirror image. A guilty verdict is (supposed to be) beyond reasonable doubt. A not guilty verdict is everything else. You're ignoring the missing middle and deciding that it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that 16 young men have all told the same lie about a powerful person for .
You're entitled to whatever opinion you want to have about Spacey. But if your opinion is based on the idea that a not guilty verdict means innocent beyond reasonable doubt, then your opinion is based on a total misunderstanding of the way the legal system works.