Comment by lukan
1 year ago
'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.