Social media allegations, the spirit of due process, and you!
It's hard to have a neutral position or tone about sexual assault. I think we can all agree that sexual assault is bad and should be punished when credible evidence exists, and I think most of us can also agree to the corollary that it's hard to prove allegations of sexual assault on a good day, let alone 10, 15, 20, or 30 years after the event happened (which is after the statute of limitations expires in many states anyway).
So from this starting point (sexual misconduct = bad, proving sexual misconduct = hard), let's talk about that lovely and unique junction we've been finding ourselves in, in the current year: (1) the use of social media to amplify stories of sexual misconduct and (2) to organize economic punishment of famous persons who have engaged in such conduct (when it is credible enough).
Let us take the case of Kevin Spacey. After Anthony Rapp publicly accused Spacey of sexual advances while Rapp was 14 years old, about a dozen similar stories surfaced to show a fairly similar trajectory of behavior. Even if nothing ever crosses the line into "rape," a clearer picture seems to emerge from these myriad stories of a pretty damn creepy, repressed dude. Spacey lost several acting jobs as a direct reaction to these stories.
We might also look to Al Franken for further insight. In this case, eight women to my knowledge have separately accused Franken of violating behavior, with one pretty outrageous photo as proof of the most famous initiating accusation.
There are plenty of other serial predators that have been exposed in the last year and change too. Let me be clear on this: I see exposing serial predators as a good thing. I hope you do too. There can be a problem of believing claims too quickly, which I think we're all aware of and need to be careful of, but as far as exposing and at minimum economically punishing serial abusers, I think that's pretty much a good for society as a whole, especially when done through legal channels (i.e., a Hot Cosby).
So to the questions:
- How should we as a society deal the increased ability to share horrific stories of sexual misconduct and abuse?
- How can our governments adjust to better handle cases of unaddressed sexual assault?
- How should we individually react when someone we know (famous or otherwise) is accused of sexual misconduct? Along these lines, should we make economic choices based on the allegations that surface about some person?
I have so many opinions on this it would take several pages to explore. Instead I will keep it short.
Social media exposure is the only way this fubar can of worms will be resolved. Immediate posting of alleged events and responses to allegations should be mandatory. Viral responses and judgements from a societal group as a whole will clarify and define just what is and is not acceptable behavior in the shortest time possible. And it certainly won't make any more or less mistakes than the current system.
Is sexual assault horrible? Yes, it is inexcusable. Does the world as a whole even know how to define sexual assault? I haven't seen any evidence of it. I contend that social media is exposing more and more individuals to ideas. That there is actually a platform now to wrangle what it is and is not.
The more open it becomes, the better.
I am really curious as to how you would suggest we enforce this part:
Would we not be able to bring cases to court unless we had already alleged an event publicly on social media of some kind?
I kind of got into this with @TrialAndFailure over in this comment chain but I'm really curious about reasons for punishment. You seem to be saying that social media can be part of a sort of societal rehabilitation. Is that a fair reading?
There is already a similar mechanism in place, with the same degree of effectiveness and credibility. It's not mandatory; it's called keeping a journal. People who consistently record events in a journal are able to submit said journal as evidence in a court case. While people can still lie and document false data, a journal entry written soon after an event is more creditable than waking up one day and telling everyone "Oh yeah, Star A copped a feel on me 2 years ago in an elevator!"
Many people do their journalling via social media. Unbelievably, some people also journal their crimes on social media. They are mildly surprised when they get caught. As to being able to bring a sexual harassment case to court - the number of cases unable to be investigated and/or prosecuted out there currently due to lack of evidence is uncountable. There are also a number of social mores and stigmas associated with sexual crimes across all known cultures globally.
Let's look at a few of them. Some of these are social only. Others are criminal in some areas.
First, penetration of a vagina or anus with anything at all without permission of the person who owns said orifice. This is generally considered a criminal act in the majority of social structures. If a victim of this particular crime goes to a recognized health facility and gets examined before washing or waiting too long, penetration is not hard to prove. DNA traces are sometimes available. Recorded testimony at said institution is given much more weight than testimony brought forth much later. Timeliness is the issue here, and cases are more likely to be successful. No social media exposure is really necessary.
Second, the social taboo of sleeping with your sibling's spouse. This is not a statutory offense. But if you look at gossip, depictions in dramas, day time talk shows, and literature from many time periods, it's considered Not Okay. It is not, however, considered sexual assault because the people with physical contact consented. Law will only get involved (and only in some areas) if it's your sibling, no matter how consensual. Social media in this case may affect public opinion of the people involved, and any consequences stay in that realm.
Third, touching someone's nips. Is this illegal? No. One could argue that making it illegal could cause the reproduction crisis in some areas to become even worse. Touching someone's nips when they don't want you to? Ah, now we get into a fuzzy area that is abused by both sexes hugely. Can a society draft a law saying "Don't touch people's nips unless they're O.K. with it?" Yes. Is it enforceable? Not at all.
I want to go on record that I prefer people to not touch my nips unless I'm okay with it. Will I take random people to court for bumping my boob during shopping at a mall in December? No. What about a water polo game? No. Pushing in a crowded elevator? No. Tweaking in a mosh pit? Eh. I think that's low class and assholeish, but who on earth would I take to court? Hence, I avoid mosh pits. Bars - I am extremely picky about going to bars and what company I keep there, so thankfully it hasn't come up.
What about getting caught in a corner at work or school, or other places where a person may reasonably expect not to have their nips twiddled by surprise? How does this get enforced? Most offenders know where the cameras are. Most of them are not stupid enough to do it in front of other people. So it comes down to first hand accounts where one said "Did!" and the other says "Didn't!" Social media as journalling? What about slander? What about verifying anything? It's just as messy there as trying to take things to court. But where is the best venue to take it?
On a slightly different tangent, if there were an online/app registry called "I Said Yes" where one could register consent before random sexual encounters, would you use it? Assuming security of login was stringent enough to avoid drunk permissing on other people's phones....
The problem is withdrawing consent, such as if your partner decides to do anal despite your protests, or you suddenly want to leave midway through (regardless of why you want to leave), but your partner refuses to stop until they finish. In some states, this is legal (NC law states you cannot withdraw consent midway through sex), in other states it is definitely not. How would the website/app handle that? And what is to prevent people from abusing it? Or a predator taking control of a victim's account?
Would I do this? Probably not, it sorta kills the mood to have to look someone up on an app and decide on exactly what you can do to each other beforehand (this video basically sums it up), and things can happen in the heat of the moment that you initially didn't think about or might have said no to.
To the idea that people should post incidents of sexual assault to social media, I have to say not really. At least, not at first. Go to the police or a medical facility that can collect evidence and report this to the police, then meet with a lawyer. Anything you say on social media could be used against you in court, so you should always have a lawyer go over anything you want to release to the public or the media to ensure it can't be used to claim you are being vindictive or malicious. Character defamation shouldn't happen, but it occurs all the time, and in cases where there is often only 2 witnesses (the victim and the attacker) who will tell different stories, it can influence the jury, even if a judge says to disregard statements by the defendant's counsel attacking the victim.
Edit: You should absolutely keep a journal of events, though, especially if you are dealing with repeated incidents and the police/HR/your boss don't care and you need to prepare for a potential civil suit/criminal trial. Just don't go around publishing everything without consulting a lawyer first. They will know what you should say and when (it might be best to tell the public everything before the defense has a chance to get their side of the story out, keep quiet until the jury reaches a verdict, or talk first but hold some of your cards until during/after the trial), and might even handle PR/media interactions for you.
I hadn't thought about specifics during the encounter, frankly. I'm just tired of reading articles or reports about one of two people deciding that the encounter wasn't a good idea the next day, or the next week after discussing it with friends, and crying assault. I can totally see and agree with your point of it being susceptible to abuse, or tiresome, and a lot of other things. But I don't think the current system is working any better than social media or logging in would.
Maybe I should say here that I've read an awful lot of reports. Of all sorts. I worked for a law enforcement records unit for almost ten years. I've had to read literally thousands of them while preparing, redacting, and distributing reports to various requesters. With pictures. And transcripts. Many law enforcement agencies do their very best to enforce what they can, and document when they can't prosecute. Some agencies do not.
One of the issues I have with the current system is the compartmentalization. In the US, at least, things are compartmentalized by city, county, state, and federal systems. One search will not pull everything up. A low scale predator (one that manages to not get fingerprinted because its all person vs person witnesses) may have 5 reports of cell phone panty shot reports in one municipality, 3 in a second, and 10 in a third. None of them have been successfully prosecuted. Is that enough to lock a person up? No, of course not. Would it be nice if there was a database where a search would bring all of these instances up? Yes! Is there one? There are commercial entities who are networking agencies' records upon buy in of the service. The amount and the accessibility of the information varies depending on the contract with each individual agency. They don't cross feed into different corporations, any more than Sprint shares with Verizon.
Please note that I would still not automatically assume that all the panty reports were valid. But by the time someone has 18 reports over time (and think about all the ones where people did not report,) detectives can justify the man hours and resources to conduct surveillance or stings. As much as everyone might dream of a world where all cases were addressed seriously and in a timely manner, things cost money. I don't know of a single agency that has the hours in their personnel pool to address all hear say sexual assault cases. There are many agencies where there isn't even an official report taken. Just a little memo like information record with no charges assigned. And they keep going, stacking up the victims with little to no consequence.
As far as I can tell, this leaves a huge grey area. To me it is saying for all practical purposes that if there are no other witnesses, it is acceptable behavior. It falls under the same social consequence system as sleeping with people in closed relationships, kissing and telling, backstabbing a purported friend, or getting in someone's face drunk in a bar. Do people take these on social media? Some people do. Jerry Springer's show got very good ratings for that sort of thing. Whether we upgrade the existing non-working system or start a new one based on social media, there will still be witch hunts, false accusations, lying by actual offenders, and a need to work out the kinks. (As in areas that do not work smoothly. I have nothing against relationship kinks. Party on~)
I forgot to say that I would really like it to be mandatory in journalling or social media, but it is unlikely to happen. People have strange feelings about being known to have been assaulted.
It sounds like you're advocating for witch hunts and mob justice. Frankly, none of this needs be public to mete out justice. Most of Europe being evidence for this.
OOoo. Does Europe have a successful law enforcement system for sexual assaults like groping? Does it count as an assault in Europe? Is there a sex offender registry? Is there a way for people to be aware if there is a high risk sex offender in their area?
I am not being sarcastic, I would love to know if there is a better system out there in practice. I don't advocate mob justice, by the way. But many of the things that are counted as sexual assaults are unenforceable in the US, and it really gives me heart ache to have serial molesters let go frequently because they know the system, and their victims don't.
Is there an article or wiki that explains how it's handled in Europe? I mean practically, not necessarily how people would like it to work. How it actually does work.
First off, I really don't like the whole guilty until proven innocent mentality that has developed. I am very happy people are able to come forward now, and I understand some are only doing it years later because if they did it when it was happening it would have had bad repercussions for them. Especially people in hard to get positions. I do think some people just pile on, but a good reason so many people came forward so late was because they can afford to now. And the environment is much much different now too.
My biggest problem is people often have a skewed perception on things, or they can convince themselves of things very easily. I have known a lot of people from all over the country / world. I have lived and worked with these groups of people. It baffles me that a person can hold an opinion or carry around a misconception based on nothing.
A good example is, I am playing with the idea of going vegan. I mentioned it to someone and they immediately say, "Oh no! That would be expensive." So I ask them, why do you think it would be expensive? Give me three examples of it being expensive? They just gave me a blank look and realized they had just heard that somewhere and been carrying it around. SO imagine what other misconceptions they are walking around with or opinions based on no evidence or research but they never once stopped to question any of it.
That is why going in front of a jury terrifies me. People can convince themselves of almost anything, and juries are chosen based on how easy they can be manipulated. Look at eye witness testimony statistics and how wrong people are, but 100% believed they were dead on. That stuff is scary.
As far as should this stuff be public. It depends. I don't think the media should be irresponsible and pass around anything that isn't proven. Simply putting out there, "So and so accused of this!" is irresponsible because places are going to run with that and rumors and things will crop out. Then you have this biased group of people getting called in for jury duty.
I have misgivings about the whole "economic punishment" thing. In general, I don't really believe punishment has a place in civilized society. Whether for murder, sexual assault, or anything, punishment doesn't do any good for anyone, besides satisfying the horrific bloodlust we feel toward those who have stepped out of line. This whole attitude that we must punish people seems more of an outlet for cultural sadism than an expression of justice.
Instead, I hope that we can someday embrace rehabilitation, and build our justice systems around mercy and growth rather than useless vengeance.
Plus, if you're* really intent on inflicting some pain on sexual predators, rest assured that they'll be facing social consequences regardless of whether we torture them in prison.
*General "you," not @BuckeyeSundae specifically.
When you say "punishment," I'm curious to suss out precisely what you mean. Because to me, rehabilitation is explicitly a purpose for punishment.
Let me lay out what I understand punishment to be, four common reasons to punish someone, and then see if I understand where you fall.
Punishment to me, strictly speaking, is the act of restraining someone else's freedom in response to something they have done. By itself, punishment speaks nothing to the purpose of why you are punishing a person or what you hope to accomplish with the punishment.
Instead there are four common reasons that I'm familiar with for punishing someone, two which you've laid out yourself.
In the context of this discussion, I think you're most upset with retribution and deterrence as reasons for punishment. I think retribution is one of those concepts in justice that gets understated in its importance, but overacted out in its application. Basically, I don't trust people to act proportionally when it comes to retribution, because I suspect they're too inclined to want to expand on simply punishing an individual to the broader context of deterring anyone who might copy the individual's actions.
You're entirely correct! Given your comment and the other reply, I guess I should have been more specific. Although I don't entirely understand how your definition of rehabilitation meshes with your definition of punishment. Educating or indoctrinating someone to change their behavior doesn't really imply that we're restraining their freedom by doing so, unless we're using incapacitation to make sure they don't misbehave in the meantime. Or perhaps I'm missing something about your point.
Otherwise, it seems we largely agree.
Well, the rehabilitation isn't a choice, is it? That should mean we're restraining their freedom in some meaningful way. We're forcing that education/indoctrination onto a person (as punishment for something they have done). They may not be in a constrained environment necessarily when being rehabilitated (though that incapacitation is common), but the form of rehabilitation chosen would be required of them.
Edit: to be more clear, restraining someone's freedom does not have to be only their freedom of movement. It can also be to require some specific use of their time, restraining their freedom to not engage in that specific activity.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!
I mostly agree with you, but I'd add that I think this (and this entire subject in many ways) is one where semantics really comes into play.
I've known a number of people in my life who I've stopped or limited my association with based on their behavior. A few of them sex related. I'm sure some made the same decision about me at some point.
Many would be quick to define that as punishment. Certainly a number of those people supposedly punished. For me though, it had nothing to do with punishment, nor rehabilitation. Inflicting them harm and/or showing them I disapprove in the hope that they wish to improve was, at most, a side effect not crucial to the decision. I mostly figured that given the abundance of ways I can spend my time, I had better options.
Sticking to economics, let's say I need a loaf of bread. There are two stores on the lower floor of my building, identical in every imaginable way, owners who are practically clones... until last night, when one of them decided they wanted to get unconsensually handsy with a customer, while the other served an identical customer like normal.
If I chose the latter store, like I most certainly would, would that be considered punishment for the former? If so, then I have no problem with being punitive.
I'd say any rehabilitative system imaginable would, to some degree, be definable as punitive as well.
This isn't to detract from your point, because I think I understand what you mean by punishment, and I might think those kinds of punishment are, at best, a well intentioned but marginally effective response, and at worst, a grossly undesirable display on the side of the punisher.
More so a comment on how muddy conversations can get when words aren't perfectly defined, whether it be punishment or sexual misconduct or etc.
You make a good point. It does get confusing if I specify that social punishment is okay while other forms aren't, because there isn't always a clear demarcation between them. If I were to be put in charge of it all, I'd certainly have to think long and hard about things like this.
Not to touch on the issue of punishment without due process, but in terms of whether punishment has a place in civilized society, I have previously felt similarly to you on the issue, but have changed my position somewhat. I think that punishment is not primarily an outlet for sadism (though there may be instinctual programming that generates a sense of positive feelings when a criminal is punished), I think functionally it serves as a deterrent.
Most people are like you and me - sane and ethical. Many people on our planet are not. Just look at all of the white collar crime, the evils that megacorporations and brutal dictatorships get up to. There are people who lack any sense of empathy, the sociopaths, the cheaters in society are a real thing. Rehabilitation is nice - but it is definitely not simple, and I hardly think that Harvey Weinstein is going to actually change his ways after a couple weeks at rehab for his casting couch process. Punishment is a preventative measure for people who don't understand or don't agree with the social contract. It's like how you don't negotiate with terrorists - because if you do, that encourages more terrorism in the future, since they know it has a greater chance of providing value for their trouble.
edit: I think i may have comitted a faux pas. I replied to your comment because i felt so strongly about the topic, but i did so before reading the other responses you got, which touched on the same argument I was making. :x
Exposing, yes. Economically punishing without proof, abso-fucking-lutely NOT. This is nothing more than trial by mob. This opens the door to people making up false allegations against a public figure, and that person being "economically punished" for things they didn't do. Our court system is there to prove the truth or falsity of allegations without emotion. Let's not encourage witch-hunts.
I'm not sure what there is to deal with. Most adults already know about rape and sexual abuse. It's not really different to read or hear about a specific instance of rape or abuse than to read or hear about general rape or abuse.
However, we should absolutely shut down any presumption of guilt without a trial. An allegation is merely an allegation. We should not punish people before their guilt is proven. Our western justice system is based on the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty; we need to stop the opposite from happening in general society.
They don't need to. There are already laws in place that make sexual assault illegal. There are already police in place to investigate allegations of sexual assault. There are already courts in place to hear allegations of sexual assault.
We should mind our own fucking business, and let the legal system do its job.
No. Do not punish someone until they are proven guilty. At that point, if you feel it necessary not to spend money on their product/service/art, that's your prerogative.
Me, I tend to separate art from the artist.
Also, there's the issue that public figures usually don't work alone. They often work with many other people, and a decision to economically punish a public figure will punish those other people. The recent case of a television program being cancelled because its star said things that people didn't like is a case in point: not only was the star punished, but so were dozens of other people who all lost their jobs (other actors, production crew, writers, directors, and so on).
EDIT: typo
I hear you on trusting in and wanting to wait for people to have their day in court before making a judgment, but what about situations that have happened too long ago in the past for there to be a fair or equitable hearing? What about cases of childhood sexual abuse that might have passed a jurisdiction's statute of limitations? Should we care and do nothing about these potential abuses that our justice system misses?
There has been quite a sizable backlog of untested rape kits that comes with a number of problematic questions that we need to resolve (when do we tell someone that their test results are finally processed? Do we tell them? Or should we just wait until a prosecutor decides to bring a specific case to trial? Should we have a place where they can just look up the status of their test and expect them to hit F5 every couple years?).
Now fortunately many jurisdictions have different statutes of limitations if DNA evidence is involved to prove a sexual assault, but some of those statutes of limitations may have also passed in some of these cases. What should happen there? As you said, the laws are already on the books that define those statutes of limitations for sexual assault. Some jurisdictions have indefinite statutes of limitations for cases of DNA-evidenced sexual assault and/or rape. It's quite a lengthy and annoying complicated list to go through (which is why I linked it in the OP).
Edit: Most => many when I reviewed the evidence and couldn't easily sum up that giant, complicated, annoying piece of shit table.
No trial means no proof means no judgement means no punishment - official or social or economic.
How are we to know that, when X stands up and accuses Y of sexually abusing them, they're telling the truth, or that their memory is reliable?
A man recently accused George Takei of drugging him and sexually assaulting him over 30 years ago. Naturally, a lot of people were outraged that this icon of the LGBT community had done something so dire. Then, a reporter took it upon himself to investigate the case and interview the accuser. It turns out the accuser's story fell apart under questioning. His memory was unreliable after 30+ years, and experts informed the reporter that certain aspects of the story (Takei allegedly drugging the supposed victim) couldn't have happened.
In these circumstances, it's not appropriate for the mob to go off half-cocked. When just a reporter, and not even the police and the courts, can undermine an accuser's story, we have to remind ourselves that everyone is an unreliable witness: you, me, him, her, and everyone else. We all have faulty memories. This is why we need to find objective evidence, and conduct a proper investigation, and then put the evidence to a court.
If you're concerned that too much time has passed for an accusation to be tried in court (I had forgotten about statutes of limitations), then maybe this falls under the category of something the government can do to address these allegations: increase or even remove the statutory limitations for making accusations.
There is no way I will be convinced that mob trials and witch-hunts are the right response to any allegations of any crimes.