It's engineered that way.

Posted Sep 27, 2018 8:44 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
In reply to: It's engineered that way. by paxillus
Parent article: Code, conflict, and conduct

Something being a criminal offence doesn't mean it should be ignored for CoC purposes, but the point I was making was that it's inappropriate to describe someone who raped multiple people as being "accused of pretty much grabbing all the buttocks wherever he went".

to post comments

It's engineered that way.

Posted Sep 27, 2018 9:32 UTC (Thu) by paxillus (guest, #79451) [Link] (7 responses)

We're all subject to criminal law CoC, so there's no need to remind people not to rape, murder, rob ..

Due process, conducted without fear or favour, where the punishment fits the crime, seems like a better idea than trial-by-twitter.

I don't know anything about the Tor developer accusations - this is the first I've heard of it. I'm assuming from your comments that he's either admitted the crimes or been found guilty by a court.

It's engineered that way.

Posted Sep 27, 2018 16:42 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (6 responses)

> Due process, conducted without fear or favour, where the punishment fits the crime, seems like a better idea than trial-by-twitter.

Due process, correctly, exists to provide a very high barrier against the state using its power against individuals. But if a conference attendee tells the organisers that a fellow attendee attempted to rape them, the organisers should take action even if the reporter is unwilling to contact the authorities.

> I'm assuming from your comments that he's either admitted the crimes or been found guilty by a court.

No, but I'm unclear on what that has to do with anything.

It's engineered that way.

Posted Sep 27, 2018 20:13 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> But if a conference attendee tells the organisers that a fellow attendee attempted to rape them, the organisers should take action even if the reporter is unwilling to contact the authorities.

And if the alleged rapist has an otherwise clean sheet, while the alleged victim has a history of making complaints?

Unfortunately, there are a fair few fantasists out there. And a lot of *MEN* are victims of sexual misbehaviour. Don't get me wrong, the majority of victims are female, and are often ignored, but those men who are victims seem to be ignored even more!

(It seems pretty common for female predators - should a man dare reject them - to accuse their intended victim of all sorts of crimes. And seeing as we're on this subject, this seems to have been the crime of the "rape apologist" - to point out that men can just as easily be victims, too.)

Cheers,
Wol

It's engineered that way.

Posted Sep 27, 2018 20:33 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

> And if the alleged rapist has an otherwise clean sheet, while the alleged victim has a history of making complaints?

Action involves listening to the complaint, talking to those involved and making a decision based on the evidence. That decision may amount to no more than "Please stay away from this person", but the decision to engage should have nothing to do with whether someone's willing to go to the police.

It's engineered that way.

Posted Sep 28, 2018 8:57 UTC (Fri) by paxillus (guest, #79451) [Link] (3 responses)

"No, but I'm unclear on what that has to do with anything."

It's to do with "someone ... raped multiple people" and due process.

That due process has its origins in the English Barons curbing King John's power is neither here nor there.

It established the principal that

“No freeman shall be ... in any way destroyed . . . except by the legal judgment of his peers or (and) by the law of the land.”

Few would object to a multiple rapist being 'in any way destroyed' by due process.

It's engineered that way.

Posted Sep 28, 2018 9:13 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm free to judge rapists in any way I want regardless of whether a court has found them guilty, just as you're free to judge me for doing so. As the OJ Simpson trial showed us, courts will (justifiably) refuse to use the power of the state against an individual if the state fails to prove its case in a reasonable way - but that doesn't demonstrate that he didn't murder his wife, and it's reasonable for individuals to treat him as if he did. Jake raped multiple people, and the absence of a legal ruling doesn't change that. If you think less of me for asserting that, well, feel free.

It's engineered that way.

Posted Sep 28, 2018 10:16 UTC (Fri) by paxillus (guest, #79451) [Link] (1 responses)

It's not when people judge other people any way they want, it's when they grant themselves the right to 'in any way destroy' another.

It's engineered that way.

Posted Sep 28, 2018 16:33 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

No one here has the power of the state to "destroy" anyone, unless you are redefining "destroy" to mean "have an adverse opinion about someone", in which case your statement is self-contradictory.