[citricsquid]

I hate this argument and it illicits an emotional response, I will try and be measured in my response, usually this argument takes the form of "innocent until proven guilty".

I have sat as a member of the jury on a case in which a man was accused of sexually abusing a child many, many times. I sat in that jury, I listened to the evidence and I determined beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. He is a rapist. As a member of the jury, that is my determination, I stand by that decision to this day.

I was unfortunate enough to sit on a jury with a majority of jurors that made the determination that he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and unfortunately that caused a mistrial, and unfortunately the prosecution decided not to pursue a retrial. The accused, the rapist, walked free from court.

Your argument is that I cannot stand by my determination, that I must sit here and tell you that he is not a rapist, that he did not abuse that child again and again and again, because I was unfortunate enough to sit in a room with people who don't understand sexual abuse.

People walk free from court, either by way of a mistrial or because the jury deliver a not guilty verdict, all the time, and these results are frequently delivered not because the person is innocent but because of errors made by the jury, the prosecution or by the police. Some people don't even make it to court because prosecutors can make decisions that aren't aligned with justice or fairness but with their own self interest.

As a private citizen you have every right to use your knowledge and understanding of a case to make a determination about the accused and you have every right to let that determination influence your actions. I will never allow the man I judged to be a rapist go near my children.

    It is morally impossible to remain neutral in this conflict. 
    The bystander is forced to take sides.

    It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. 
    All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. 
    He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear and speak 
    no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander 
    to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, 
    engagement and remembering...

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/542700.Trauma_and_Recove... [transcribed from this book]

edit: I would also like to add that courts do not deal in proof, they deal in evidence. A guilty verdict delivered if Jacob Applebaum faces criminal charges does not prove he is guilty of what he has been accused, a not guilty verdict delivered if Jacob Applebaum faces criminal charges does not he is innocent of what he has been accused. The justice system does not deal in absolutes, it doesn't deal in proof.

[maerF0x0]

There is a difference in our timelines and thus your long story does not exactly apply. The key is that you're saying something to the effect of "Why should I keep quiet?" (_after_ the trial). I am saying we should not be slandering this guy until after a trial. AFAIK the only evidence at this point is TOR saying they have heard rumors and the slander website. That is not justice, its closer to a lynch mob or witch hunt thus far.

I fully agree with you that a not guilty verdict is not identical to innocence. But its the current system we've (as a society) have agreed upon for deciding what is actionable or not. The makers of this website have taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and "executioner" (actor of justice).

[powera]

Why are you so certain the website is slander (which, as a legal term, requires that the accusations are false)? And various other people who have negative personal experiences with Appelbaum, are their statements false as well?

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4105

[maerF0x0]

agreed that my usage of the term slander was loose, not legal, more along the laymen's usage. I simply meant that it is a negative claim of the target.

As you've said its not slander unless proven false.

[citricsquid]

I think my comment may have been unclear, I apologise, the point I'm trying to make is that how we determine things as individuals and how the legal system determines things is very different, and individuals should not be admonished for the decisions they make based on the evidence available to them. The legal system works in a very specific way, a way that can often be at odds with how an individual thinks, and a way that can be counter productive for making an individual decision.

The case I sat on had a piece of evidence that could not be admitted initially because of a legal technicality, the defendant made a mistake during his testimony and much to the defence's chagrin he revealed something that allowed the prosecution to present the evidence which otherwise would never have been heard by the jury. An article written about the case I sat on would have mentioned that piece of evidence -- even if it hadn't been delivered in court, it was public knowledge -- and a person reading that article would know more than I might have known had the defendant not made that mistake. The evidence heard by a jury is not more true or more meaningful than evidence heard by those outside of the process, it is evidence that fits within the legal parameters, evidence that the lawyers determine furthers their cause, it's evidence that has a material impact on the legal outcome.

The information available to the public about a case before a trial has taken place can be more informative than the information available to the jury during the trial, there are many cases where jurors have been contacted after a high profile trial to talk about the case and revealed the decisions they made would have been very different had they seen information now available to the public. Some cases may never make it to court, victims of sexual assault are often told that their case won't be pursued because the prosecution doesn't believe they have a strong chance of winning, does this mean that the victims and people knowledgable about the cases should never be permitted to air their opinions, the opinions they built on the evidence, because it never made it to court? That doesn't seem reasonable, to suggest that the gate keeper of whether or not an opinion is allowed is an opaque unsupervised legal process.

Every day individuals make decisions about people based on the information available to them and nobody bats an eye. When I witness caring and compassionate behaviour I choose to pursue friendship, when I see disrespectful behaviour I choose to minimise interactions, this is normal human behaviour that we all engage in every day, in personal and professional contexts. When people I trust inform me that someone behaves inappropriately, I choose to minimise interactions with that person, this is normal, it's accepted, everybody does it, so why does this suddenly become inappropriate to engage in this normal behaviour when the person is involved in sexual assault? Why are we suddenly worried about slander and libel and letting the legal system run its course when someone is accused of rape but the same isn't applied to claims about being inconsiderate, or theft. A credible claim is made about a party guest stealing jewellery, they aren't invited to parties any more, a credible claim is made about sexual assault, "whoa whoa whoa, let's not start a lynch mob here, let's leave it to the legal process".

The legal system exists to deal with law not personal opinion, it doesn't exist to determine how individuals can or should feel.

[blasterCannon]

Don't apologize. They certainly aren't.

[powera]

You're correct that a "not guilty" verdict isn't the same thing as saying the person is innocent.

But saying that "a guilty verdict ... does not prove he is guilty of what he has been accused" is splitting hairs. At least in the US, the legal term is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Which is a proof, but isn't an absolute.