Comment by hilbert42
1 year ago
"I will probably also not trust this guy in 2 years, unless he can convincingly explain why and how he changed."
As you correctly say, 'there are no simple solutions to a problem this complex as human trust' but your last point is telling. Let's assume your villain provides proof well beyond reasonable doubt that he has actually changed for the better the fact remains that most people will always remember the fact—even many, many decades later. Moreover, I'd suggest that incident forever changes one's perception of the person even if it's almost imperceptibly small.
I claim no great expertise in human nature but from my observations of others and of myself I'd suggest that it is human nature to retain these negative images even if one has no logical reason whatsoever to do so.
It seems to me this is one of the basic underpinnings that drives defamation and why so many have such strong opinions about it.
For instance, to my knowledge I've never been defamed in public nor do I know of any reason why anyone would bother defaming me. I'm hardly controversial, and although I'm certainly no saint, I can't think of anything I've done that's bad enough to warrant someone pursuing defamation against me. (No doubt, there have been many occasions where I've been called an idiot or perhaps even a ratbag in private but I don't consider these amount to defamation.)
Nevertheless, I remain mindful that I could be wrongfully defamed in public for the very reason that others will remember the fact well into the future even though the claim was without merit.
Perhaps this is an evolutionary trait developed out of self-protection or similar, but whatever the underlying reason many remain mindful of the potential damage defamation can cause whether a claim is factual or not.
Incidentally, I know someone who committed a misdemeanor as a youth many decades ago and has been well behaved and kept out of trouble since. That said, on rare occasions someone will still mention the fact.
No doubt the right to have certain facts about oneself forgotten is a complicated matter, and if opinions were scaled just about everyone would have a different view—and, no doubt, those views would again vary according to one's perception of the claimed or actual wrongdoing (if plotted, I'd venture to suggest everyone's opinions would be a 3D graph and no two graphs would the same).
As the old parable goes 'try to please all and you'll please none'.
'try to please all and you'll please none'.
Yes. But I do not want to try to please all.
In case of doubt, for the (potential) victims.
I am dealing right now with a case, where a pedophile tries to sneak into some semi public group activity/festival I am part of. The most frustrating thing is exactly this, some people saying the past where he was convicted is gone (or the conviction wrong) and he changed. Except it isn't and he has not changed (I am certain of because of some things I have heard him say, which are sadly not recorded). And if the conviction would not exist officially anymore, I would have allmost nothing solid against him, that he is in fact not just some weirdo, but a dangerous weirdo who should not be welcome, where I go with my children.
edit:
"Let's assume your villain provides proof well beyond reasonable doubt that he has actually changed"
And if there is no doubt, there is no doubt. Then it would be fine. But I want to judge myself, with as many facts as I can get and not blindly trust. I know people can change. But if people hide their past, I assume they have not actually processed it.
"And if the conviction would not exist officially anymore, I would have allmost nothing solid against him,..."
I reckon your example illustrates my point that people never quite forget any accusation whether true or false. And it's why I suspect it may be evolutionary or partly so (but I've no proof of that).
Why? Well, the person to whom you are referring would be perceived by the vast majority to be a menace to society and potentially very dangerous. His past actions and behavior were so hideous and unacceptable that they would never forget what he'd done. And I'd posit this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective—if we forget about his past actions and or hide facts about them then we do so at our peril. Keeping such knowledge is thus a survival instinct.
Even if it's demonstrated he's changed, it's nevertheless better people keep knowledge of his actions and behavior because there's always the possibility he's a recidivist or that he could become one in the future. Clearly, it's not in society's best interest to either hide his past actions or to forget about them entirely.
That doesn't contradict what I said earlier (and perhaps I should have been more precise in what I said). However, your case is extreme and it should always remain so. The other extreme is where some trivial misdemeanor could be blown up out of all proportion and ruin one's life.
Now let's consider a hypothetical case where someone's life can be ruined through a false accusation. Person A intensely dislikes person B for whatever reason (it's irrelevant) and secretly spreads false rumors that B is a pedophile when he is not. This example is NOT in the same league as say the one I used earlier where people called me a 'ratbag' behind my back, it's altogether something much more sinister and dangerous.
Person B cannot protect himself because he doesn't know where the rumor started (or cannot prove his suspicions, or he may be altogether unaware of the rumor and never learn its consequences) and therefore he cannot sue in a defamation case. And likely worse, those who hear or become aware of the false rumor about B will never forget that they've heard it. Moreover, those who become aware of the rumor may not inform B of the fact, B may never learn why he's always being shunned.
Mud sticks. What remains stuck on B may only be a tiny trace—and he may not even be aware it's there [if he's unaware of the rumor]—but nevertheless it's still there! And its presence has consequences.
Personally, it's hard for me to think of any action that's more despicable than what A did. I'll refrain from stating what punishment I'd dish out to A if I were ever given half a chance.
These examples only illustrate why defamation is such a difficult and vexed matter.