When is it legitimate to try and convict people in the court of public opinion? (e.g. Bill Cosby and others)

[Axulus]

When is it legitimate to judge people based on information that has been made public against the person, especially when there are accusations of things like serious crimes? Our justice system is grounded upon erroring very much on the side of caution of not convicting an innocent party. As a result, there are several safeguards put in place to prevent wrongful conviction resulting in a very high standard of evidence to convict. Many crimes committed do not leave behind enough evidence to convict someone on this basis. However, if multiple people claim to be victims of similar crimes by one individual, there is still a high probability they are in fact guilty of at least one or more of the alleged crimes. A good example of this is the rape allegations against Bill Cosby. 13 women have accused him of raping them and using similar methods (drugging or making them impaired in some way). None of them filed police reports at the time the alleged crimes took place, and most of the alleged crimes took place many years ago. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to bring about criminal proceedings against him for any of the individual alleged rapes. However, after reading the accusations and researching the matter, I believe there is a very high likelihood that he is guilty of raping one or more individuals and using methods like drugs to aid in the commission of the crime and is thus a grade A sicko. The probability alone that anyone would have 13 accusers with similar stories all being false is quite low (although not zero). If I were in the entertainment industry, I would not want to have any dealings with him (despite being a fan of his work). Is this fair even though he has not been convicted in our justice system? The downside with using the court of public opinion is that innocent individuals will be far more likely to suffer harm due to people forming judgments from false accusations, misinformation, and unsubstantiated rumors. On the other hand, I have no obligation to have any kind of relations or business dealings with any particular individual. If one of them gives me the creeps, I reserve the right to have nothing to do with such individual. It can become especially harmful, however, if enough people don't want anything to do with the individual, rightly or wrongly.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It's a difficult call. The bar of evidence is higher for prosecution than it is for public opinion, but public opinion can very well be wrong.

I've not read over the cases in question, but trust your instincts but also doubt your conclusions.

 

[laughing dog]

When is it legitimate to judge people based on information that has been made public against the person, especially when there are accusations of things like serious crimes? Our justice system is grounded upon erroring very much on the side of caution of not convicting an innocent party. As a result, there are several safeguards put in place to prevent wrongful conviction resulting in a very high standard of evidence to convict. Many crimes committed do not leave behind enough evidence to convict someone on this basis. However, if multiple people claim to be victims of similar crimes by one individual, there is still a high probability they are in fact guilty of at least one or more of the alleged crimes. A good example of this is the rape allegations against Bill Cosby. 13 women have accused him of raping them and using similar methods (drugging or making them impaired in some way). None of them filed police reports at the time the alleged crimes took place, and most of the alleged crimes took place many years ago. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to bring about criminal proceedings against him for any of the individual alleged rapes. However, after reading the accusations and researching the matter, I believe there is a very high likelihood that he is guilty of raping one or more individuals and using methods like drugs to aid in the commission of the crime and is thus a grade A sicko. The probability alone that anyone would have 13 accusers with similar stories all being false is quite low (although not zero). If I were in the entertainment industry, I would not want to have any dealings with him (despite being a fan of his work). Is this fair even though he has not been convicted in our justice system? The downside with using the court of public opinion is that innocent individuals will be far more likely to suffer harm due to people forming judgments from false accusations, misinformation, and unsubstantiated rumors. On the other hand, I have no obligation to have any kind of relations or business dealings with any particular individual. If one of them gives me the creeps, I reserve the right to have nothing to do with such individual. It can become especially harmful, however, if enough people don't want anything to do with the individual, rightly or wrongly.

What does everyone else think?

I don't think it is any less fair than being raped and not seeing the rapist prosecuted and convicted.

 

[Metaphor]

When is it legitimate to judge people based on information that has been made public against the person, especially when there are accusations of things like serious crimes? Our justice system is grounded upon erroring very much on the side of caution of not convicting an innocent party. As a result, there are several safeguards put in place to prevent wrongful conviction resulting in a very high standard of evidence to convict. Many crimes committed do not leave behind enough evidence to convict someone on this basis. However, if multiple people claim to be victims of similar crimes by one individual, there is still a high probability they are in fact guilty of at least one or more of the alleged crimes. A good example of this is the rape allegations against Bill Cosby. 13 women have accused him of raping them and using similar methods (drugging or making them impaired in some way). None of them filed police reports at the time the alleged crimes took place, and most of the alleged crimes took place many years ago. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to bring about criminal proceedings against him for any of the individual alleged rapes. However, after reading the accusations and researching the matter, I believe there is a very high likelihood that he is guilty of raping one or more individuals and using methods like drugs to aid in the commission of the crime and is thus a grade A sicko. The probability alone that anyone would have 13 accusers with similar stories all being false is quite low (although not zero). If I were in the entertainment industry, I would not want to have any dealings with him (despite being a fan of his work). Is this fair even though he has not been convicted in our justice system? The downside with using the court of public opinion is that innocent individuals will be far more likely to suffer harm due to people forming judgments from false accusations, misinformation, and unsubstantiated rumors. On the other hand, I have no obligation to have any kind of relations or business dealings with any particular individual. If one of them gives me the creeps, I reserve the right to have nothing to do with such individual. It can become especially harmful, however, if enough people don't want anything to do with the individual, rightly or wrongly.

What does everyone else think?

It's always 'legitimate', because you always have the right to think what you want and to withhold your labour or your money from a person or enterprise you don't want to support. People also have freedom of speech and conscience, so they should be free to try and convince others if they want to.

But even though it's 'legitimate', this doesn't mean that people are always 'right'. A vocal minority of Christians wanted to boycott Disney for using gay voice talent (specifically, Ellen) in one of their 'family' movies (Finding Nemo).

Such a boycott is utterly ridiculous (because being gay is not morally wrong), but you can't stop people from being utterly ridiculous.

 

[Axulus]

When is it legitimate to judge people based on information that has been made public against the person, especially when there are accusations of things like serious crimes? Our justice system is grounded upon erroring very much on the side of caution of not convicting an innocent party. As a result, there are several safeguards put in place to prevent wrongful conviction resulting in a very high standard of evidence to convict. Many crimes committed do not leave behind enough evidence to convict someone on this basis. However, if multiple people claim to be victims of similar crimes by one individual, there is still a high probability they are in fact guilty of at least one or more of the alleged crimes. A good example of this is the rape allegations against Bill Cosby. 13 women have accused him of raping them and using similar methods (drugging or making them impaired in some way). None of them filed police reports at the time the alleged crimes took place, and most of the alleged crimes took place many years ago. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to bring about criminal proceedings against him for any of the individual alleged rapes. However, after reading the accusations and researching the matter, I believe there is a very high likelihood that he is guilty of raping one or more individuals and using methods like drugs to aid in the commission of the crime and is thus a grade A sicko. The probability alone that anyone would have 13 accusers with similar stories all being false is quite low (although not zero). If I were in the entertainment industry, I would not want to have any dealings with him (despite being a fan of his work). Is this fair even though he has not been convicted in our justice system? The downside with using the court of public opinion is that innocent individuals will be far more likely to suffer harm due to people forming judgments from false accusations, misinformation, and unsubstantiated rumors. On the other hand, I have no obligation to have any kind of relations or business dealings with any particular individual. If one of them gives me the creeps, I reserve the right to have nothing to do with such individual. It can become especially harmful, however, if enough people don't want anything to do with the individual, rightly or wrongly.

What does everyone else think?

It's always 'legitimate', because you always have the right to think what you want and to withhold your labour or your money from a person or enterprise you don't want to support. People also have freedom of speech and conscience, so they should be free to try and convince others if they want to.

But even though it's 'legitimate', this doesn't mean that people are always 'right'. A vocal minority of Christians wanted to boycott Disney for using gay voice talent (specifically, Ellen) in one of their 'family' movies (Finding Nemo).

Such a boycott is utterly ridiculous (because being gay is not morally wrong), but you can't stop people from being utterly ridiculous.

I guess instead of legitimate, I should maybe use the word "appropriate"? When is it appropriate to believe the allegations and then adjust your behavior accordingly when interacting with the accused (to the detriment of the accused when done on a mass scale). To what extent should we give the benefit of the doubt to the accused in our personal or business relations with them (if at all?). Do you think it's all subjective, or are there some general guidelines that balance out unfairness for falsely accused vs. appropriate response/reaction to those who are likely guilty?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would agree with your position *IF* the allegations were independent.

However you have to consider the possibility of copycat allegations. Are they truly independent or repeating what others said?

 

[Axulus]

I would agree with your position *IF* the allegations were independent.

However you have to consider the possibility of copycat allegations. Are they truly independent or repeating what others said?

We can use Bayesian analysis to help assess the situation and determine some possible probabilities. In situations where there are 10 or more accusations against a celebrity of a similar crime with similar stories, how many such cases is every single accusuation false vs. at least one being true? Maybe one out of 25? One out of 100? That would mean the probability of guilt is between 96%-99%. Or do you think group false accusuations are common, where every single accusation is false in 1 out of 5 (20%) of cases (still an 80% probability of guilt)? Is there evidence that can help determine a more accurate answer to this question?

Even if we don't have perfect evidence on the probabilities, we can come up with some reasonable estimates. What do you think are reasonable estimates?

My intuition, experience and information I've read in the past about false accusuations tells me that such false group accusations are uncommon. I would put it in the 1 out of 50 range or so, which means probability of guilt is in the 98% range.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I have never been a fan of lynching.

Now the more facts in evidence, then the more likely people are to form opinion and to express those opinions.

That you cannot stop.

Is it righteous to do so, probably not, but it happens and it happens all the time.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

When is it legitimate to judge people based on information that has been made public against the person, especially when there are accusations of things like serious crimes? Our justice system is grounded upon erroring very much on the side of caution of not convicting an innocent party. As a result, there are several safeguards put in place to prevent wrongful conviction resulting in a very high standard of evidence to convict. Many crimes committed do not leave behind enough evidence to convict someone on this basis. However, if multiple people claim to be victims of similar crimes by one individual, there is still a high probability they are in fact guilty of at least one or more of the alleged crimes. A good example of this is the rape allegations against Bill Cosby. 13 women have accused him of raping them and using similar methods (drugging or making them impaired in some way). None of them filed police reports at the time the alleged crimes took place, and most of the alleged crimes took place many years ago. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to bring about criminal proceedings against him for any of the individual alleged rapes. However, after reading the accusations and researching the matter, I believe there is a very high likelihood that he is guilty of raping one or more individuals and using methods like drugs to aid in the commission of the crime and is thus a grade A sicko. The probability alone that anyone would have 13 accusers with similar stories all being false is quite low (although not zero). If I were in the entertainment industry, I would not want to have any dealings with him (despite being a fan of his work). Is this fair even though he has not been convicted in our justice system? The downside with using the court of public opinion is that innocent individuals will be far more likely to suffer harm due to people forming judgments from false accusations, misinformation, and unsubstantiated rumors. On the other hand, I have no obligation to have any kind of relations or business dealings with any particular individual. If one of them gives me the creeps, I reserve the right to have nothing to do with such individual. It can become especially harmful, however, if enough people don't want anything to do with the individual, rightly or wrongly.

What does everyone else think?

I think it couldn't hurt to hit the return key every couple sentences...

RE: Bill Cosby - I don't think there can be this much smoke without some fire. He apparently knows these women and settled out of court with one of them (calling it a mis-understanding). If he was truly helping these women with their acting careers (only) it is extremely unlikely that so many of them would come forward with such damning false accusations. His silence and appearance cancellations recently are not helping matters either.

RE: Accusations in general: I think it's appropriate to side with the preponderance of the evidence - we are all our own civil court when it comes to our opinion.

aa

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would agree with your position *IF* the allegations were independent.

However you have to consider the possibility of copycat allegations. Are they truly independent or repeating what others said?

We can use Bayesian analysis to help assess the situation and determine some possible probabilities. In situations where there are 10 or more accusations against a celebrity of a similar crime with similar stories, how many such cases is every single accusuation false vs. at least one being true? Maybe one out of 25? One out of 100? That would mean the probability of guilt is between 96%-99%. Or do you think group false accusuations are common, where every single accusation is false in 1 out of 5 (20%) of cases (still an 80% probability of guilt)? Is there evidence that can help determine a more accurate answer to this question?

Even if we don't have perfect evidence on the probabilities, we can come up with some reasonable estimates. What do you think are reasonable estimates?

My intuition, experience and information I've read in the past about false accusuations tells me that such false group accusations are uncommon. I would put it in the 1 out of 50 range or so, which means probability of guilt is in the 98% range.

You can't do such an analysis because you don't know how much of a copycat effect there is. High profile things tend to get copycats. Also, high profile targets tend to get false claims in an effort to extract money.

Instead, the right way to look at this is things that can't be copycatted--things that aren't known, or at least aren't known at the time of the allegation. Likewise, how well do the details match up? Unfortunately, only the police are in a position to evaluate this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

RE: Bill Cosby - I don't think there can be this much smoke without some fire. He apparently knows these women and settled out of court with one of them (calling it a mis-understanding). If he was truly helping these women with their acting careers (only) it is extremely unlikely that so many of them would come forward with such damning false accusations. His silence and appearance cancellations recently are not helping matters either.

In a case like this you can't conclude that smoke means fire.

Consider: Suppose the first allegation is false, done to extract money. Seeing that tends to provoke copycat allegations for the very reason you state--enough smoke must be fire. Making a false allegation against someone with other allegations is more likely to work than making one against someone without other allegations.

 

[Axulus]

RE: Bill Cosby - I don't think there can be this much smoke without some fire. He apparently knows these women and settled out of court with one of them (calling it a mis-understanding). If he was truly helping these women with their acting careers (only) it is extremely unlikely that so many of them would come forward with such damning false accusations. His silence and appearance cancellations recently are not helping matters either.

In a case like this you can't conclude that smoke means fire.

Consider: Suppose the first allegation is false, done to extract money. Seeing that tends to provoke copycat allegations for the very reason you state--enough smoke must be fire. Making a false allegation against someone with other allegations is more likely to work than making one against someone without other allegations.

Most of the additional allegations did not qualify for money because the crime took place too long ago. They spoke up because they wanted to support the recent case that was alleged to have happened in 2005. None of the others that spoke up have gotten a dime of money, nor do they expect to, nor are they even attempting to.

You should really look into the facts before making these kinds of claims.

 

[Unbeatable]

I guess instead of legitimate, I should maybe use the word "appropriate"? When is it appropriate to believe the allegations and then adjust your behavior accordingly when interacting with the accused (to the detriment of the accused when done on a mass scale). To what extent should we give the benefit of the doubt to the accused in our personal or business relations with them (if at all?). Do you think it's all subjective, or are there some general guidelines that balance out unfairness for falsely accused vs. appropriate response/reaction to those who are likely guilty?

I think it's all subjective.

 

[Axulus]

I guess instead of legitimate, I should maybe use the word "appropriate"? When is it appropriate to believe the allegations and then adjust your behavior accordingly when interacting with the accused (to the detriment of the accused when done on a mass scale). To what extent should we give the benefit of the doubt to the accused in our personal or business relations with them (if at all?). Do you think it's all subjective, or are there some general guidelines that balance out unfairness for falsely accused vs. appropriate response/reaction to those who are likely guilty?

I think it's all subjective.

So you don't have any issues with so called "witch hunts", so long as it is kept within the law (no vigilante justice)?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

RE: Bill Cosby - I don't think there can be this much smoke without some fire. He apparently knows these women and settled out of court with one of them (calling it a mis-understanding). If he was truly helping these women with their acting careers (only) it is extremely unlikely that so many of them would come forward with such damning false accusations. His silence and appearance cancellations recently are not helping matters either.

In a case like this you can't conclude that smoke means fire.

I can, and I did.

Consider: Suppose the first allegation is false, done to extract money. Seeing that tends to provoke copycat allegations for the very reason you state--enough smoke must be fire. Making a false allegation against someone with other allegations is more likely to work than making one against someone without other allegations.

I'm well aware of the 'feeding frenzy' mentality. I work in insurance.

I also work in probability, and I am convinced that it is extremely unlikely that this many people, whom Cosby knows and has been affiliated with, would independently decide to make perfectly baseless accusations against him, without response.

I am not saying he is guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. I am saying that the preponderance of evidence suggests that something inappropriate occurred.

aa

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In a case like this you can't conclude that smoke means fire.

I can, and I did.

Consider: Suppose the first allegation is false, done to extract money. Seeing that tends to provoke copycat allegations for the very reason you state--enough smoke must be fire. Making a false allegation against someone with other allegations is more likely to work than making one against someone without other allegations.

I'm well aware of the 'feeding frenzy' mentality. I work in insurance.

I also work in probability, and I am convinced that it is extremely unlikely that this many people, whom Cosby knows and has been affiliated with, would independently decide to make perfectly baseless accusations against him, without response.

I am not saying he is guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. I am saying that the preponderance of evidence suggests that something inappropriate occurred.

aa

See, that is what I think.

I think he did something, something very wrong, just not sure what.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In a case like this you can't conclude that smoke means fire.

Consider: Suppose the first allegation is false, done to extract money. Seeing that tends to provoke copycat allegations for the very reason you state--enough smoke must be fire. Making a false allegation against someone with other allegations is more likely to work than making one against someone without other allegations.

Most of the additional allegations did not qualify for money because the crime took place too long ago. They spoke up because they wanted to support the recent case that was alleged to have happened in 2005. None of the others that spoke up have gotten a dime of money, nor do they expect to, nor are they even attempting to.

You should really look into the facts before making these kinds of claims.

I was talking about the general pattern--you have to be careful about copycats.

 

[Unbeatable]

I think it's all subjective.

So you don't have any issues with so called "witch hunts",

I'm sure there are probably witch hunts I dislike and witch hunts I like, but I can't honestly claim to have any coherent principled objections to witch hunts categorically.

so long as it is kept within the law (no vigilante justice)?

I support the enforcement of laws against vigilante justice. That doesn't mean that I categorically oppose individuals engaging in it. There are definitely acts of vigilante justice which I would like.

 

[Bronzeage]

I would agree with your position *IF* the allegations were independent.

However you have to consider the possibility of copycat allegations. Are they truly independent or repeating what others said?

I think 13 is the magic number.

Imagine the convoluted psychology required to induce 13 women who once had personal access to a wealthy celebrity such as Bill Cosby, to fabricate a false rape accusation. Whose luck is so bad, they met 13 different emotionally disturbed women who brooded for years and then one day read a news article about Cosby and decided it was time to take revenge for some unspecified reason.

I'm a fairly skeptical person, but thirteen is a relatively large number for these sorts of things, when one considers the time frame. Bill Cosby is not the type to be found at a frat party. He doesn't live in the kind of chaos where casual sex would go unnoticed. Does he have the time to build the kind of relationship with a young woman which allows him the opportunity to drug her and have sex with her? How do you do that? How do you do that 13 times?

If these accusations are true, it doesn't really matter if the women have no proof. They are just one person out of many, who have knowledge of what happened. A man can't do something like this thirteen or more times, without the help and cooperation of people close to him. Those are the people Bill Cosby needs to worry about. When they talk, it's all over.

 

[Nexus]

I just saw a report that Janice Dickenson claims he raped her in 1982. I know she's been on various reality TV shows but I don't know her well enough to speculate if she is simply an attention whore that would say or do anything for publicity. Either way its not good for him to have a celebrity accuse him.