Legal is not the same as moral or ethical. While he did not do things that were bad enough to lock him in a room over, we as a society are still allowed to socially punish him.
But what did he do? I’m not very tuned into everything that happened. Did he commit sexual assault or not? If they can’t charge him, I’d assume that means they can’t prove he did it right? OFC that doesn’t mean he actually didn’t, but I don’t see why anyone should “socially punish” him over something you don’t even know if he did or not, and something that he was found not guilty of.
I don’t mean for this sound like sexual assault apologia or something, I just really don’t understand the situation very well and trying to look this up online all I see is that he was accused and then found not guilty.
Agree about “legal being not the same as moral or ethical”, but calling for mob justice just isn’t something I would root for. The system isn’t perfect, of course, but one has to trust that people sitting in court have had access to more evidence than the randos of the internet, that, and the fact that everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, absolutely. But the thing is that a lot of things are proven during trials that are immoral but not illegal. He could still have done a ton of indefensible stuff that makes him a bad person but still get a not guilty verdict. My point is that “Not being a criminal” is the lowest tier we should judge a person. If we are going to give a person a large amount of money and influence we are allowed to ask for more.
Yep, I get the sentiment, but it’s up to us to make amoral things illegal by means of democratic representation (assuming you live in a democratic country). It’s just slower, but that’s kind of the whole point of this :)
Legal is not the same as moral or ethical. While he did not do things that were bad enough to lock him in a room over, we as a society are still allowed to socially punish him.
Or he did do the things but they’re hard to prove in the court of law.
But what did he do? I’m not very tuned into everything that happened. Did he commit sexual assault or not? If they can’t charge him, I’d assume that means they can’t prove he did it right? OFC that doesn’t mean he actually didn’t, but I don’t see why anyone should “socially punish” him over something you don’t even know if he did or not, and something that he was found not guilty of.
I don’t mean for this sound like sexual assault apologia or something, I just really don’t understand the situation very well and trying to look this up online all I see is that he was accused and then found not guilty.
Agree about “legal being not the same as moral or ethical”, but calling for mob justice just isn’t something I would root for. The system isn’t perfect, of course, but one has to trust that people sitting in court have had access to more evidence than the randos of the internet, that, and the fact that everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, absolutely. But the thing is that a lot of things are proven during trials that are immoral but not illegal. He could still have done a ton of indefensible stuff that makes him a bad person but still get a not guilty verdict. My point is that “Not being a criminal” is the lowest tier we should judge a person. If we are going to give a person a large amount of money and influence we are allowed to ask for more.
Yep, I get the sentiment, but it’s up to us to make amoral things illegal by means of democratic representation (assuming you live in a democratic country). It’s just slower, but that’s kind of the whole point of this :)