[throvwavvay]

What is the point of having a trial by media like this? If we want social change, could we first define the requirement for trial by media?

We got statements from the accusers. We got statement from the accused. We got statement from people who are not victims but claim to speak for them (ie prosecutors). We got people who are neither the accuser nor accused, but instead talks in favor/against a conviction (ie lawyers). We got a jury, ie all the comments here on HN and articles on media platforms. All that is missing from a real court is the unbiased judge who can specify the rules and finalize a judgement.

For those 100+ comments in here, particular those that make a direct or implied judgement, do you think we should replace the court system by articles like this? The current justice system has problems. It requires time, energy, and often capital from victims. Sometimes the guilt gets away. Sometimes the innocent get locked up. There is a lot of fear of not being believed. A lot of self-doubt. Privacy is lost for both the accuser/victim and accused/perpetrator. Social relationships can be destroyed, and risk of retaliation is high. Trial by media really sound as a tempting solution, and all we need to give up seems to be that of a impartial judge and the rules.

notes: Its fun to see the up and down votes in real time. 1->4->2->5->1->3. The Zero replies make for a interesting discussion.