The idea that one is "innocent until proven guilty" beyond a "reasonable doubt" is a great standard for a legal system. I think it should be hard to justify using government power to take away a person's liberty. That said, there's no reason why we each need to use that same standard when making personal judgements.
For example, many people argued that it was wrong to declare Scott Peterson's guilt before his trial had even started. And sure, from a legal perspective we had to treat him as if he were innocent. However, anyone who paid attention to the news (unlike that idiot Amber Frey) had known for quite a while that Peterson murdered his wife. It was obvious. So obvious that he should have been executed without a trial? Of course not. But individuals can use whatever standards they want to judge each other, restricted only by their consciences.
Secondly, consider Michael Jackson. Sure, nothing has been proven in court, but it doesn't take a genius to interpret the evidence. He admits to sleeping in bed with strange children and says that he thinks it's normal. He surrounds himself with children all the time and separates them from their parents. When he gets accused of molestation (repeatedly) he pays out huge sums of money to make the charges go away. Should we throw him in jail without a trial? No. But it seems to me that there's more than enough evidence for someone to make a personal evaluation of the situation and rationally believe that he's a child molester.
Finally, consider OJ Simpson. He was actually acquitted of murder -- does that mean we all have a moral responsibility to act as if he's innocent? Duh, of course not. Everyone knows the guy did it, that's why he tries to maintain a low profile and doesn't get any more movie roles. A jury acquitted him, so he doesn't go to jail, but that doesn't prohibit us each from reaching our own conclusion on the matter and acting accordingly.
If you want to call MJ on the sleeping in bed with children, why don't we just make that illegal? Guilt or innocence aside, I think his fame has something to do with payoffs - as in, people know he has the money and that they can get it. Principles are another matter - why would he pay them off if he knew how bad it looked etc.. I'm just sayin.. If all the things that aroused suspicion make people know he's guilty, why not skip the middle man and just make those things illegal?
Come on, you know I didn't do it, man! I don't want people to think I'm like, deranged or anything.
m: As I said, we're not talking about the criteria used for throwing people in jail. I'm allowed to make moral judgements based on factors that the law can't or shouldn't take into account. That's the whole point of my post!
OJ: My bad. Please don't hurt me.
From where I sit, anyone who argues that so-and-so is "innocent until proven guilty" is either (1) participating in a criminal trial, or (2) an idiot.
"Guilty until proven innocent" as a concept in making personal judgements of someone else leaves far too much room for error... in my opinion.
When I was living at home, for example, I'd hear my dad rant on and on about people he'd see on local TV news... making all sorts of assumptions about their lives and who they are.
In the end, I attributed it to a pervasive cynicism he had about the world... where he sees the bad long before seeing the good. Attitudes like that are easily swayed by prejudices and stereotypes... and I refused to subscribe to that particular view of the world and the people within it.
I guess it all boils down to this: We always find what we look for.
If we look for bad people who do bad things, we'll find it. If we look for the good in people and the good things done in the world, we'll find them.
If we look for scapegoats that suit our often arrogant views of how things are, we'll find them. If we look for antitheses of the above, we'll find them as well.
Mark: Dude. Discrimination and stereotypes make life possible. If we had to judge each person from first principles we'd never get anything done.
That's ridiculous. I get lots of stuff done without discriminating and believing stereotypes.
Every new person I meet starts out with a clean slate, in my book. I don't jump to conclusions about them based on appearance.
Regarding MJ: he's a weird guy, I accept that, of course I do. I can't think of any established stereotype that really works well for him, he's just odd. Given that he's so bizarre, it's perfectly sensible to believe that he surrounds himself with children and *doesn't* have sex with them. I think that's at least as likely as believing that he's a molestor.
Actually, the vibe I get from Jackson is profoundly asexual. I don't think he likes sex at all (that's my prejudice).
I think it's sad that society can't imagine an adult having fun with lots of children without molesting them.
Maybe MJ is guilty, I don't know. But I feel so badly for him if he's innocent, cos most people's casual assessment of him is "dangerous (but rich) pervert".
Mark: Oh please, you're full of crap. It's unconscious and unavoidable.
jez: There's nothing wrong with ostracising people who are weird and creepy, even if what they do isn't illegal. We shouldn't throw people in jail for that, of course.
MW: Oh please... you're full of crap yourself.
Do instincts jump out when you first meet someone? Sure. Do I let those instincts unduly influence my approach to the situation? Not necessarily.
I don't need some psychology study to tell me how I react to new people I meet.
Everyone's definition of "weird and creepy" is not the same.
It's basically the clique concept from high school... just dressed up in fancy language and cloaked in someone's sense of morality.
Live your life on your terms (lawfully, of course) because in the end, it's better to be hated for what you are than liked for who you aren't.
There's nothing wrong with ostracising people who are weird and creepy
Do you really want to say this? If you mean that this is what most people do; this is a natural application of human nature, then I can agree with you. But to say there's nothing wrong with it implies that you approve of it, which I'd find surprising.
If you were weird (let's pretend that you aren't), would you like people making off-colour assumptions about you? I honestly find it hard to see how you can put your prejudiced and viscious reaction to Jackson on the same moral or intellectual footing as mine.
(you also mentioned OJ Simpson -- although he was found innocent by the jury, there exists orders of magnitude more evidence to incriminate Simpson)
Mark: I'm saying that it's subconscious and that you don't recognize your own discrimination, even if you think you do. Plus, I'm saying that discrimination is beneficial, or we wouldn't do it.
Plus, the vast majority of people would agree that MJ is weird and creepy, so I hardly think I'm stretching here.
jez: I am weird in a lot of ways, and I couldn't care less what people think about it. If it gets to the point where I care, I'll change my behavior. I've changed in the past to be more accepted. That's how society works.
I ksnow that's how society works; I take issue with you claiming there's nothing wrong with it.
Is this an example of you saying "look that's the way I am, it's within me to be prejudiced and viscious, just accept me as I am, and society as it is"? Which would be in the same class as the behaviour you originally complained about!
Clearly discrimination is not always beneficial, otherwise we wouldn't have anti-discrimination laws. (I'm echoing your argument in support of discrimination).
MW: And I'm saying that discrimination is NOT an involuntary thing. I'm also saying that it's not always beneficial. Lots of things that are supposedly "subconscious" are not beneficial.
We should judge people by what they do... not how they look. Just because someone is dressed in older, worn-out clothes doesn't mean they're poor... and just because someone is homeless doesn't mean they're some bum who refuses to support themselves. Just because someone is black and dresses like some rap music artist doesn't mean they're a menace to society. Just because someone is dressed up in a gothic fashion doesn't mean they're a part of some devil-worshipping cult.
I find it hard to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim in cases where the person's act was open to the public and the accused (for me..murderer) just sat there and waited for the police to come arrest him. He had just hacked a woman to death with a cutlass. He cut off her wrist and sawed her neck off. Let the courts procedures take place but its insane to ask persons who witnessed the man's act, (even tried to stop him and had to flee for their lives)..tp esteem him innocent until the court says otherwise.