Guilty till proved innocent

[Spartacus]

There seems to be a trend in the media / online to assume someone is guilty of a crime based on either accusations or perception and that person then has to prove themselves innocent to clear their name. 

We all used to be innocent until proven guilty but now with social media and mainstream media, which then drives public perception, that seems to be the opposite case.

Whilst I have no knowledge or interest in the case, the latest accusation is obviously Russell Brand, and this morning the media already feels like they are saying he is guilty even though there is only accusations at this time and no trial has occurred. 

It strikes me that even should he be innocent, the media has already tried him and damaged his reputation. Of course, if he is guilty then a proper trial should occur but that then leads to questions of impartiality of a jury as they could have been influenced by social and mainstream media.

Similar is happening in America with the pro and anti trump camps, using social and mainstream media to sway perception of his guilt or innocence even before trials occur. 

Are we starting to fall in to the trap highlighted in 1984, where citizens could simply accuse someone of thought crime and the thought police would whisk them away for rehabilitation ? Or the witch trials of medieval time where women were accused of being witches, tried and executed based simply on rumours or hearsay ? 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Spartacus

[DuncanW]

Interesting question

Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal law concept. 

The Times/C4/anyone else are free to state/publish facts as they see fit. Russell Brand has a reputation for litigation and is at liberty to pursue further actions that he thinks he would win. He would only need to action against one or two parties to establish his case, any others would then settle out of court.

So it seems that those publishing these accusations are VERY confident he would not be able to do so. This case/story has been bubbling under for years now and I'm sure that the relevant in-house lawyers are very confident no succesful challenge can be made. 

That is the law of the land we live in, and there is nothing new about.

Also, the crimes he is accused of are serious sexual assaults and rape. They are not in any way 'thought-crimes' and the comparison is a bit icky to say the least.

 

[jazzer]

The complainants need to report it to the police to investigate and the various stages of the criminal justice system will then follow. 

Having watched the Russell Brand Channel 4 documentary, I'd say it wasn't looking good for him, the cases were pretty compelling, but it's the statements to the police that will count and any investigation which follows  with the evidence they have or do not have.

[HeadNun]

There are very good reasons why those women talked to the press and the not the police. And likening rape and sexual assault to a thought crime is frankly more than icky... it's outrageously insulting. 

The press has always exposed stories that are in the public interest - I don't know why everyone is so up in arms about this (Harvey Weinstein anyone?) - and it wouldn't have run with this without a cast iron guarantee from legal that evidence gathered was robust. 

As for the courts - just because you can't prove something didn't happen, doesn't mean it didn't. 

Ask anyone in the industry who's met him and you'll likely hear plenty more similar stories. 

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, HeadNun said:

There are very good reasons why those women talked to the press and the not the police. And likening rape and sexual assault to a thought crime is frankly more than icky... it's outrageously insulting. 

If you had read it correctly, you would see that I am not comparing rape and sexual assault to anything at all, I am highlighting the issue that social media plays in assuming guilt without a trial. 

What if, a bit of a stretch of anyones imagination, he is totally innocent of the crimes he is accused off?  Could the reputational damage be undone? 

Let's look at the Depp vs Heard situation where film studios dropped him lile a tonne of bricks due to the accusations she made, yet at the end he was found mostly innocent.

In the process, his reputation was damaged and it may be so damaged that he never has a big role again! 

Whilst bad news sells, there has to be a balance to make sure that Madia (press and social) doesn't try someone with out a jury. 

 

[HeadNun]

7 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

If you had read it correctly, you would see that I am not comparing rape and sexual assault to anything at all, I am highlighting the issue that social media plays in assuming guilt without a trial. 

What if, a bit of a stretch of anyones imagination, he is totally innocent of the crimes he is accused off?  Could the reputational damage be undone? 

Let's look at the Depp vs Heard situation where film studios dropped him lile a tonne of bricks due to the accusations she made, yet at the end he was found mostly innocent.

In the process, his reputation was damaged and it may be so damaged that he never has a big role again! 

Whilst bad news sells, there has to be a balance to make sure that Madia (press and social) doesn't try someone with out a jury. 

 

While I understand you didn't mean to make a direct comparison, it was clumsy. 

The Sunday Times and C4 Dispatches wouldn't have run the story without the utmost confidence that it would hold up in court. They have too much to lose reputationally and financially, as Brand is lawyered up to the teeth and has been over the years that his victims have tried to complain to his camp. 

The Depp-Heard case is different - it wasn't  a newspaper expose that defamed him, it was a piece Heard wrote about being a domestic abuse survivor, which is why Depp sued and won, his reputation somewhat restored. 

If Brand is innocent then he'll win a libel case against the Times / C4 - if he doesn't sue, he's admitting his own guilt. As a previous producer of Dispatches and Panorama, I don't think the ex controller of the BBC would have nailed her colours to the mast by contributing to the programme unless she was confident the allegations being made were true. 

This story wasn't run because bad news sells, it was about holding high-powered celebrities to account for their abuses of power and holding media outlets to account for their condonation of those celebrities, at the expense of the women who work for them.