a call for justice

[drewkitty]

I am not fond of the court of public opinion as a medium for justice. Talk is cheap, gossip is malicious and to quote Mark Twain, "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on." The best advice I've found, and it has sustained me through dark moments when I've been slandered (links reluctantly redacted), is a line from Lois McMaster Bujold, "Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will."

I am also not fond of the criminal courts. The burden of proof is steep, justice is expensive and not very blind, one must rely on the sense of the average person (!) and the system says from the start that they'll let a guilty person go before they mistakenly convict an innocent (they do anyway!). Punishments are severe (and more often than not deservedly so) but essentially random.

I'm going to throw the gauntlet down to the entire alternative community. This includes but is not limited to the science fiction fandom. SMOFs take note.

We need to come up with a justice system within the community, that is responsive to the needs of the community, that functions according to and within community standards, which protects us from the asshats yet has safeguards against abuse.

Oh, wait. Wikipedia's done that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_guide

We need something like this for former fen who should no longer be welcome to purchase a badge, because they have abused the trust of the community by committing serious offenses.

Comments

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

The problem here is there is not a lot of evidence. We have claims, counter-claims, and one hell of a lot of drama.

This is why I like our system of justice. You can't simply claim someone turned you into a newt in open court and expect to get away with it. The criminal justice system demands evidence that proves the prosecution's case beyond any reasonable doubt. Is it perfect? No. But it beats lynch mobs which is what the situation you linked to has the chance of becoming.

[ravan.livejournal.com]

The problem I have with that particular situation is that a) the accusation comes at a very ideal time for the accused's enemies, who are no shining lights in their own right, but are not the accuser (I think) and b) the account is very similar to one posted about another individual at another con, eerily so, but very different people.

I refuse to truly make a judgment, because I don't actually know any of the principles involved, and I see a lot of knees jerking.

[cargoweasel.livejournal.com]

Wait, you're not fond of the court of public opinion, but you propose that we create.. a court of public opinion?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

It's already a lynch mob. There's nothing to protect the accused (who, while an asshat, may in fact be innocent, but can't say anything about it) and no way for the victim to get justice either.

When the question is not "put the asshat in jail" but "deny the asshat participation in our community," I think a different system is worth looking at. It doesn't have to, and probably shouldn't be, an adversary system as in the criminal or military justice systems. A court of equity or restorative justice would be much more appropriate.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

I also see a lot of knees jerking. I feel comfortable labeling the accused as an asshat after wading through their online presence for a bit. This doesn't make them guilty, and I also have no idea whether they "did it" or not. I should add that plenty of people have called me an asshat in their time, and on rare occasion might have even been right to do so.

The court of public opinion requires everyone to make a tiny verdict, as opposed to a jury making a massive verdict. I'd like to explore a middle ground.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

A court, but not of public opinion. A trial by one's peers, in the community of one's peers, according to rules under a neutral arbiter or arbiter(s).

For one thing, participation by the accused would have to be voluntary. For another, the accused would have to have something to gain from participating -- such as the potential of either clearing their name or salvaging some of their reputation. (Note: the appeal must be to both innocent accused and guilty accused, which is two different sets of motivations.) The victim would also have to have something to gain, such as the potential for serious sanctions and redress of harm, set against their pain and effort and potential for re-victimization.

A link to a publ

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Here's an example of what I'm fumbling in the direction of:

"The Revolution Starts At Home: Confronting Partner Abuse In Activist Communities"

http://incite-national.org/media/docs/0985_revolution-starts-at-home.pdf

"I’ve also been fascinated by feminist and other radical utopian fictions since I was a kid, and one big thing I’ve always wondered is, what will we do with perpetrators? If we agree that the cops and courts are not our friends; if they do not work to keep us safe; if perpetrators are not ‘out there’ but ‘in here’ - what solutions do we magic out of our guts to create safety, justice and healing?" –Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha

Thank you to ravan for links to various journals in which I discovered the gem above.

[finnkveldulfr.livejournal.com]

On the other hand....
Our present criminal justice system is very broken. Get a good enough lawyer, and yes, you CAN get away with murder. Can't afford a good lawyer, that public defender may be so incompetent, or lazy, or corrupt and-or collaborating with the prosecution, that you will get convicted of murder even though you didn't do it.

Meanwhile-- Juries of our so-called peers appear to have a real bad problem distinguishing between the "beyond a reasonable doubt" (what the standard of evidence for conviction is supposed to be) and "beyond all possible doubt" (an impossible standard to ever reach).

Our system of "justice" does still beat lynch mobs, and it does still have potential-- if the problems with buying and denying justice (based on the cost of decent lawyers and spin doctors) and stupid juries can be fixed.

[finnkveldulfr.livejournal.com]

Considering the problems with "command influence" in the military (in)justice system-- you really don't want to look to that one for an example of how things should be done.

However-- I looked at the link to Wiscon's rules you posted: whatever good or bad otherwise exists in their rules of conduct, their method for deciding on guilt and/or punishment looks remarkably like the military's rules for "non-judicial punishment"-- wherein the 'powers-that-be' running the con get to be judge, jury and executioner. As I believe I'm reading your inferrence correctly (tell me if I'm wrong)-- doesn't necessarily meet the needs of the community and follow community standards, does it?

The joys of screencaps.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

http://i.imgur.com/fSSMS.png

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Precisely. Having the con chair, the executive committee, and/or the parent corporation decide such cases is very hard on them, distracts at best and wounds at worst their service to the fandom, and creates a perception of arbitrary unfairness especially if confidential information has guided the decision.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Not trying to fix the criminal justice system. Exploring alternatives that do not mean vigilante justice.

[finnkveldulfr.livejournal.com]

*nods* Understood.

The preceding comment of mine was in response to Gridlore's comment (the part starting with "this is why I like our system of justice"),not your original post or the other comments apparently intervening on this thread. I suppose though that starting a discussion within the comments section of one of your posts that's about something else-- well, this may not be the right place for my response to Gridlore.