Re: [DIYbio] Re: Help end harassment in hacking!

Cathal,

I agree with you on this. Its important to keep innocence until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. But I think you're misunderstanding whats going on. 

The burden of proof is not on the accused in most criminal proceedings but on the state. Except in civil suits (where one person is suing another) the state is expected to investigate and uncover the relevant evidence, provide a judge for moderating proceedings, and organize a jury of peers for determining the result. In places like Denmark these days, sexual violence is being treated as a different sort of crime where the victim also has to play the role of state prosecutor, gathering all their own evidence to put forth in court. 

This is equally problematic for justice as "guilty until proven innocent," creating a situation where unless you are wealthy enough to afford your own army of lawyers, you have no recourse when a crime of sexual violence is committed against you. If we are interested in truth and justice, its crucial that we do not place the burden of proof on the accused, but take that burden on ourselves. Jen should not be forced to be victim and prosecutor all in one (though it seems like she is more than willing to take up that second role herself, the point remains that a state should be concerned enough with upholding its own laws and the appearance of justice to provide prosecution).

Just hope to clarify! 

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 9:45:52 AM UTC-4, Cathal Garvey wrote:

I can't commit to a response to everything being discussed, because the
volume is waay too large for me to digest and properly consider, but
this jumps out at me:

On 03/06/14 14:27, Jen Kotila wrote:
> By doing what the Danes do and putting the burden
> of proof more heavily on the accused than the accuser.

..this is the sort of idea that crops up all the time as a seemingly
common-sense approach, but usually ends up being absolutely poisonous to
a free society. It's always been popular to accuse ones' neighbour of
the crime-de-jour, hence inquisitions, witchhunts, wars on terrorism.
For a time in my own country, it was sufficient to accuse a person of
IRA membership to have them locked up.

A person must be considered innocent in the absence of evidence, so the
burden of proof must remain upon the person accusing, not the accused.
There are ways to help encourage those who feel abused to come forward,
but assuming the guilt of the accused is not one of them; it will cause
too much collateral damage, and create more victims.

--
T: @onetruecathal, @IndieBBDNA
P: +353876363185
W: http://indiebiotech.com