← Back to context

Comment by suifbwish

4 years ago

This doesn’t seem very scientific. You can’t determine if someone is lying based on them “seeming like an attention seeker or not” deductive reasoning in a legal system demands “beyond a shadow of a doubt” certainty before convictions are made.

Also no it’s pretty cut and dry: if you punish someone who is innocent under ANY circumstance without reviewing the case under a very critical eye you might as well throw out the justice system entirely, break out the torches and pitchforks and start gathering wood for the witch burning.

The point I'm making here is that you're too hung up on the criminal justice system. No one is talking about criminal punishment except you. We extrajudicially punish people who are innocent all the time. I was suspended in school for getting stabbed. Professors make entire classes retake a test if there's the suspicion that a few cheated. There are all sorts of extrajudicial punishments that happen, all the time, to innocent people, that we collectively don't give a shit about.

Why are you taking a particular stand here about a person who probably did a thing that's much worse than the average thing that results in extrajudicial punishment, has so far received absolutely zero consequences, and is unlikely to receive many beyond his decision to no longer speak at conferences? Like why die on this hill when there are so many other forms of worse extrajudicial punishment that happen every day?