Comment by maeln
1 day ago
> > I have no idea who is telling the truth in this situation, and unless you are the person who has been accused or those who are the alleged victims, neither do you
> Almost sounds like there'd be a long established fair-as-possible process for dealing with these situations, doesn't it?
A fair-as-possible process that is only fair if you have enough money to afford a lawyer, the time to fight for your case, are not part of a community that has been systematically discriminated against by the people enforcing the process, that the laws are in your favor, that you are not victim of a difficult to prove crime, ...
I will never advocate for vigilante justice, but let's not kid ourselves, the justice system has many, many flaws and bias, and acting as if it should be the only source of truth, and that no personal judgment should be made without, is very naïve.
At no point was I insinuating that the justice system isn't flawed. It's heavily flawed, for all to see.
The alternative however, is unjustifiable. Mob law is worse than no law.
The justice system is pretty terrible, but it's still better than mob justice.
> and that no personal judgment should be made without
I think it's fine to make personal judgements about things that have little impact on other people. For things that have a big impact, a more formal approach is called for. I think TFA makes a strong case that the impact here is big.
> The justice system is pretty terrible, but it's still better than mob justice.
Absolutely, but there is a space between mob justice and the legal system. Most community do self police in some form or another. It is also far from perfect, and mistakes happen just like in the other system. But it is a middle ground between the heavier burden of proof and long process used by the legal system, and the lack of usually any proof and visceral reaction of mob mentality.
Member of a community usually have more information about the other member of the community, which inform their judgment. They have also more at stakes.
> I think it's fine to make personal judgements about things that have little impact on other people. For things that have a big impact, a more formal approach is called for. I think TFA makes a strong case that the impact here is big.
If we choose to believe him. If we choose to believe the accuser, then we could reason that by "exposing" him they may have prevented other victim. Something a long and legal process might not have prevented. I am not saying this is the case. I know personally neither the accuser nor the accused, and have no real way to make an informed decision in this case.
> But it is a middle ground between the heavier burden of proof and long process used by the legal system, and the lack of usually any proof and visceral reaction of mob mentality.
Where do you see the line between community self-policing and mob justice? I agree that community members often have information about each other, but I think it's often low-grade and commingled with vague popularity and "office politics". I interpreted the situation in TFA to be that many people signed the letter who had little information either way.
>> I think TFA makes a strong case that the impact here is big.
> If we choose to believe him.
Here I was only talking about the impact it had on him, not whether or not he was guilty of something. I think we can believe that it had a big impact on him. Or do you suspect that he is exaggerating for effect?