[ashelmire]

People have forgotten that we enshrined that as a legal right because we determined it was best for society (or, more likely, never thought about it). It's not just a legal principle; it's a principle of just society. When we ignore it in the corporate world or other aspects of private life, we're saying that we think mob justice and presumption of guilt produces a better world (or a better corporation, etc).

Of course, even in our legal system, all it takes is an accusation. How many people are currently serving times for crimes they didn't commit? I'd bet the answer is disturbing high, especially when the level of certainty is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do so many convicted of murder or other crimes later get proven innocent? If someone didn't commit a crime... you'd think there was quite a reasonable doubt.

[woah]

What’s up with all this stupid hand wringing? If a janitor didn’t clean the floor and got fired, would you be calling for a long, complicated, and expensive government mandated quasi-legal trial? Why is it that we have to extend every possible protection to a creepy dude who asks prospective employees to take off their shirts?

[JoshTriplett]

Leaving aside that the person in question here has admitted fault, so there's no question of guilt here...

I often marvel that some people seem willing to completely ignore evidence that doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conviction.

Any information, whether an admission of guilt, an accusation, multiple accusations, direct observation, observation of borderline or boundary-pushing behavior, or anythings else, provides some amount of evidence. Start with some prior probability of someone engaging in bad behavior (of any type, this isn't specific to harassment), in the absence of any information. Update that probability based on what evidence you have. You now have some estimated probability of someone engaging in that bad behavior.

There's a threshold ("beyond a reasonable doubt", say 99%) where you'd use it to convict someone of a crime, depriving them of personal liberty to protect others and theoretically to attempt to reform them. There's a lower threshold (50%, "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities") where you'd use in a civil case, such as a lawsuit. There's a still lower threshold used for "probable cause", enough to get a warrant to investigate. There's a still lower threshold for "reasonable suspicion".

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st... for a wide variety of legal standards other than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the US legal system already applies, and some of the circumstances in which they apply.

So, continuing the same premise: there's a threshold (most definitely not 99%) where you'd decide not to put someone in a position of power that they seem likely to abuse. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to use a quote from someone to endorse a press release. There's a threshold where you'd refuse to employ someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone attend a conference where they might harm others or make others unwelcome. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone babysit your kids. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to date someone, or be friends with someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide to make sure you're never alone with someone.

I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?

[lliamander]

First of all, as an aside, I think a silver lining to all of these controversial accusations is that many people are becoming more educated on standards of evidence and discussing what standard to use when. I think a better understanding of these concepts is probably the best way to find common ground.

> I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?

I absolutely agree. The question is, what standard would you use? Likewise, what standard would you want used by your employer if you were accused of something?