> Juries deciding whether murderers are guilty or not. Simply unthinkable over here.
Well, that might be unthinkable in Germany, but its clearly not in Europe as a whole, since we got that from a place in Europe that hasn't abandoned it in the time since their system migrated to North America.
Let's say it's a rape, and the victim dies, what's really changed?
You can hate the idea of plea bargains, but that's a different topic.
They admit they are guilty, so proceed on.
If it means they are screwed in challenging it later or in sentencing it might matter, but it doesn't seem the case.
Otherwise, very boring examples. Nicola Gobbo was a criminal lawyer and a police informant at the same time, but hasn't been charged with anything, I feel like there would be a interesting example in there somewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Gobbo
> So I can murder someone, and say "Innocent until proven guilty", and forbid anyone from discussing whether I'm a murderer, until I'm actually judged guilty?
In many European countries it's in fact against the law to publish the name of a suspect until a court has found them guilty. And is some it's even illegal to publish the name at all.
> It is still true that the individual was accused but after being found innocent the information of them being accused isn't particularly relevant to anybody typing their name in a search engine.
"Isn't particularly relevant" according to whom? Relevance in the eye of the beholder.
Exactly. And yet she was treated as one by the media and justice system. She even spent time in prison for it. Even though there was no proof she did it.
> nor that she was innocent
There's no proof that you're innocent either, maybe you did it and should spend a few years in prison until later acquitted? Absence of proof of innocence does NOT imply guilt.
> of course claiming she is the victim
She was a victim. Not the same as the murder victim, but she got her reputation ruined, had her family go into debt trying to pay legal fees and SPENT YEARS IN PRISON. For something that there was no evidence she did, was evidence someone else did (who by the way got less time than she got, before she was acquitted), and for which she was eventually found innocent of and acquitted for.
>The article doesn't need to make the presumption of innocence
Nor does the article have any business making the presumption of guilt, but it does exactly that.
I am criticizing what the article actually does, not expecting it to do something more.
All it takes is a person registering a name then receiving notification that others have registered the same name, then conflating that with evidence of guilt in the same exact manner the articles does.
If the article didn’t set such a good example of how to ruin an innocent person’s life, I wouldn’t be concerned.
>Ok, but do people have a right to remember, too? If you murdered my daughter 30 years ago, I have a right to keep telling people about what happened, including about the person who did it.
30 years on? Why? What good can come out of it? Assuming that the person has served its time (or did it by accident or something)?
> In October of 2007, Elizabeth P. Coast, then seventeen, reported that when she was ten years old a neighborhood boy named “Jon” sexually assaulted her while the two were alone in her grandmother’s backyard
> [the trial court] tried and convicted Montgomery in a one-day bench trial for the assault of Coast. Coast testified under oath that Montgomery had sexually assaulted her in 2000.
> no other witnesses to the incident testified at Montgomery’s trial. Neither was any corroborating physical evidence that an assault occurred ever presented. The trial judge categorized this case as a “word against word situation.” In reaching his verdict, the trial judge concluded that Coast was more credible then Montgomery because she had “no motive whatsoever” to lie. The trial court then found Montgomery guilty of forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, and object sexual penetration. On April 10, 2009, the trial judge sentenced Montgomery to 45 years in prison, with 37 years and 6 months suspended…
> On November 1, 2012, Coast voluntarily made a videotaped statement at the Hampton Police Department. After consulting with counsel and receiving Miranda warnings, Coast recounted how she had falsely testified that Montgomery had assaulted her.
> Coast explained that immediately before she accused Montgomery, her mother caught her looking at “sex stories” on the Internet. Out of fear of her mother, Coast said that she was looking at inappropriate material because she had been molested when she was ten years old. After she reluctantly named Montgomery as her attacker, the lie snowballed. Coast felt like she could not admit that the assault never happened
> but the prosecutor is allowed to submit silence as evidence of guilt in and of itself.
In Germany they are not allowed to do that (the police might tell you that, but they tend to be somewhat misleading).
> That is extremely different than a prohibition against self-incrimination.
And this prohibition is actual a central principle of the German law system (and the right to remain silent follows from this).
And the common advice from lawyers here is exactly the same as it is in the US, do use the right to remain silent. Even if you are innocent.. you have nothing to gain by talking (especially without lawyer present).
> If someone is pronounced guilty after being indicted by a grand jury, tried, and exhausting his appeals, he's probably guilty.
And if you're African American, a lie from a 12-year old kid can get you onto death row and in total 39 years jail time, with not even winter clothing or a single dollar in the pocket [1].
Black people tend to be fucked by cops and the justice system, even in Europe.
> humans will say that they're not sure and might be wrong
Is that so? https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-... These people were convicted by people who were 100% convinced their memory was correct. The DNA evidence, which is "harder" evidence, said otherwise, and in these cases, was exonerating. (There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of other cases like this by the way, where the imprisoned innocent is NOT yet exonerated, all based on overconfident eyewitness testimony that yet managed to convince a judge/jury.)
There is also the well-known Dunning-Kruger effect, the cognitive bias where individuals with limited knowledge or expertise in a particular area tend to overestimate their competence and confidently assert their opinions. We've literally seen this countless times just since the 2016 US election, just watch literally any Jordan Klepper interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoZ2Lt_aCo8 (honestly, this is a little too political for me to use as an example, but I ran out of time seeking out unbiased examples... Mandela Effect? Misplaced keys being common?)
I'm afraid you're a little off, here, on your faith in humans not hallucinating memories and knowledge.
> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims?
As the dissent notes, this decision means the victims won’t get money now. When is an open question, as well as whether it will be similar, more or less after litigation costs.
What is certain is the Sacklers will be hurt more. (Unless a couple bizarre legal maneuvres pay off, e.g. the Sacklers extinguishing liability by way of a 2004 indemnification agreement.) So in a sense, this is deterrence and retribution winning over restitution [1].
> This reminds me of some of the BS I have seen where people insist a woman should prosecute her rapist.
I was under the impression that criminal cases were pressed by the state, not any given individual.
The only thing the state may ask is testimony from the victim. If the victim is unwilling or unable to give that, then the case may just fall apart due to lack of evidence.
Story about German murderers suing to get their names removed from a Wikipedia article about the victim. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13wiki.html?_r=0
reply