Court of Public Opinion

Post Reply New Topic

Here is an article from WCSH Portland, Maines NBC affiliate.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=120452&catid=2

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO IN THE UPPER RIGHT OF THE PAGE

A man has been aquitted of charges that he snatched a three year old, however, much of the public has already convicted him and are harassing him. It is not mentioned in the article itself, but if you watch the video, you will see that it has been mentioned that he has some sort of "psychological disorder" This guy rides a bicycle, and seems to be a loner.

The accounts of the witnesses do not add up and he is preparing a suit against the parents of the child for filing a false public report, but the damage to his reputation has been done. It was alluded to that the may have been "singled out".

This seems like a very aspie plight. you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, not up to anything sinister. You are the target of bullies. The community (or certain members thereof) rush to believe you are guilty.

Now dont get me wrong, many people suspected of crimes against children are guilty, but i almost think this guy had an ASD,

ASD or not, he shouldn't be harrassed if found innocent. Though that does depend (imo) on the reason for the verdict. If he got off on a technicality but it's clear he's guilty, then I don't blame the family for being furious.

No technicality, they interviewed the "witnesses" a second time, their story changed, the court now believes there is no way it was him.

Ah, yes. This always happens. It doesn't matter whether you're guilty or innocent, or if you were guilty but you completed the terms of your punishment, because people are idiots and they're going to harass you for the rest of your life about it.

People just can't seem to understand that they can't possibly decide for themselves what the truth is, and should shut up and let the court make the verdict.

How did the word "shouldn't" in the original of the quoted post by Lene become "should" when it was quoted

I expect Aspie traits attract a lot of misguided condemnation, including these misunderstood motives for criminal offences. I guess a lot of it would come from being too well-focussed on a matter, so that the law tends to go out of the window, like everything else does if it's not directly relevent. I don't know if Aspies are more likely to inadvertantly commit the sort of crimes the public would get mobbish about. But we do tend to be somehow a little too innocent, and might not always realise the gravity of some situations. Then there's the impulsiveness. And the tendency to have a personal ethical code rather than trying to fit in with the social/civic/legal one.

That's my fault. I realised my mistake after I submitted the post and went back and ninja-edited it. Wasn't quick enough as thechadmaster must have already been using the original when making his second post. Sorry about that

No need to apologise.......I just couldn't figure it.....thanks for the explanation

The problem with the Court of Public Opinion is that it's very fickle.

If you're a teacher and ever accused of molesting or having inappropriate conduct towards a student (especially under-age), your career is over...even if the accusation is false. The stigma will always follow you because so long as people wonder. Your not being convicted doesn't mean you are innocent. It means the state could not make a case against you. Presumption of innocence is good to prevent people going to prison just based on accusations, but in truth, it does not protect your reputation.

In fact, there are many people I know are dirty as mud even though you'd never prove it in a court of law because of all the anecdotal evidence and other data which would not be allowed in a criminal proceeding. Just because you can't "prove" it to a legal standard doesn't mean something isn't true, and courts often degrade into whomever has the most effective liars testifying on their side.

However, sometimes it does good. O. J. Simpson had a 3-ring circus for his criminal trial, but the public got to see EVERYTHING...not just what was released to the jurors. He was acquitted, and I read stories where jurors admitted that if they knew some of the things his lawyers managed to have excluded as evidence, they would have convicted him. Easily 50% of Americans thought he was guilty as charged. So, he was "free" but he didn't fool everyone into thinking he didn't murder his wife and her boyfriend., and at the CIVIL trial (which has more relaxed rules of evidence), he was found liable for the wrongful deaths of his victims.