Could Weinstein ever get a fair trial?

yes that’s exactly what I was trying to explore with this thread. Aside of our own feelings of how bad of a creep he is/is not, can trial as important to the public and by that as important to the media be truly fair. If robots were evaluating it, (presuming they have no feelings) would they have reached the same verdict?

Or are feelings required component of due process?

Or if the trial happened Before Internet and the major shift in public opinion from the hard core observation of the innocent until guilty doctrine (even by the public not just courts) to the nowadays “accusation is ok to be seen as an immediate evidence of wrong doing” and “believe the victims at all cost and work your way back from there” would it be the same outcome?

Now each one of us may view the outcome differently. As good or bad or anything in between. I think it was a fairly good outcome for Harvey (the worst charges were dismissed). But it is also seen as a good outcome by many women who accused him. Does that mean that justice was served?

Long term thinking - what is the solution to this escalating shift to “guilty until proven innocent” in the eyes of public (which includes employers, friends, family, neighbors, media...). These days the punishment is Immediate. Look at the Richard Jewel case.

In a way we Are taking justice in our hands and going almost vigilante/medieval. People instantly lose jobs, contracts, money, friends, and to me what’s a biggest sign of a real threat to the justice - they often lose LAWYERS. Their own lawyers. Now that’s a pretty big shift. Is it a good one?


I agree with you that I would rather let one guilty person go than let one innocent person go to jail.

I don’t necessarily agree your view about witnesses, because many a crime (think corruption or anti trust conduct for example) often don’t have hard evidence or it is very difficult to obtain while witnesses could provide major value. But I understand what you mean.

But I am not thrilled to live in a society where accusation can literally ruin someone’s life before they even get to a trial and I think we are witnessing a MAJOR societal shift in this area.

There are some good components to it (like it may serve as a preventive measure deterring others from committing the crimes) BUT it can also be easily abused against someone plus even if the court dismisses the chargers eventually, it’s incredibly hard to restore someone’s reputation.

Plus if you repeat a lie often enough, people tend to start believing it or at least be partial to it.

For dianachristensen - this is not to say any of the witnesses in this case lied, I don’t know and don’t intend to judge or even hold opinion on it.

It’s merely if you publicly proclaim something about someone long or often enough it may stick.

Now a good and interesting example to explore is the Heard / Depp story. I listened to the entire hour of their recording and have to say she comes off as a first class manipulator/abuser.

But previously I was inclined to think Depp is the aggressive ones, partially because of her statements, media coverage and partially also because my own beliefs about Depp which may/may not be true. If I was called to be a juror in that case I would excuse myself.

I honestly tend to think that eventually one day robots will do a better job at justice than we, emotionally fickle and very impressionable humans, do.

;-)

interesting argument. However do you really think he still has the power and money needed to do that? He is reportedly worth 50 mil now yes but compared to his previous wealth that’s nothing, and considering his expenses now, that sum might fairly soon diminish significantly.

But more importantly, does he have the status needed for that?

Mind you, Several Lawyers abandoned him. Many of his long term partners and collaborators disowned him. I am sure he still has some backers left, yes, but I wouldn’t overestimate his actual influence over the system now.

I guess we will see. But if you were right well that’s injustice on its own...

again speaking in favor of robots

well yes money can buy you better lawyers thats for sure. but thats for another debate.

i dont really feel sorry for weinstein at this point, from all i know he Does seem to be a creep (with criminal behavior) who abused his position. but even Those people deserve a fair trial. Regardless of what horrible things they may have done.

But I am interested in exploring the concept of fairness under the era of new technology and after the mental shift from “innocent till guilty” to “guilty right after accused”.

I dont really have solutions but want to highlight how we (aka the society) seem to ignore the punishment we (as society) inflict on people even before official justice enforcers can carry it out within the established law enforecement framework.

Its all fine and dandy to POTENTIALLY do to Harvey (and Spacet and Lois ck and Woody Allen) but we also do it to the Richard Jewels of the world... and sometimes, just sometimes it may not be as clear where on the line of Harvey to Richard the subject of our collective punishment is.

With deepfakes and angry twittersphere ans cancell culture, this doesnt make you feel uneasy with how justice system may be potentially influanced by all of this?

Contra Points (my current favorite philosopher) has a really great video on this...