Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Yeah publication bans are always really effective. That and the reality of what happens and the psychology of what one feels are often very different (i.e. the examples of what troutman posted).
Bullying? McCarthyism?? Please.
The basic problem of any kind of assault that takes place in private is that there's rarely any evidence. You don't want an innocent person harmed and you don't want a guilty person to go free. That works both ways, if the guy is innocent and being harmed you don't want the false accusers to go free, if the girls are innocent and being (been) harmed you don't want the guy to go free.
But the nature of our justice system (burned of proof is on the accusers, innocent until proven guilty, etc) combined with the private nature and difficulty of getting that proof means the system is biased towards letting people who perpetrate the assaults go free. And I can't think of a way to balance that, since you have to have the burden of proof.
You'd think the CBC would have enough info for a basis for this, this isn't some company ignoring their lawyers advice and firing a middle manager they don't like, this is super visible.
|
Basis enough for the firing, maybe; but basis enough to accuse him if sexual and physical assaults is something else.
The Star article is taking it to that next level; and in today's society that's pretty difficult to defend from the internet lynch mob who needs no burden of proof.