Smollett And the Presumption of Innocence

[Commodore]

I was going to put this on Random Rants, but it's potential for discussion prompted me to make a new thread.

Anyway, this whole business with Jussie Smollett has me angry, but not for the reason most here who are familiar with me might think. I'm angry because I just heard he has essentially been fired from his role on the show Empire due to his being charged with filing a false police report. Now let me first say that I personally believe he is guilty, however as I have said here before, I hate seeing people's lives ruined over mere accusations. Smollett hasn't been convicted and hasn't even had a chance to really defend himself against these charges, yet he has already lost his job and had his reputation permenantly damaged.

I'm getting tired of seeing crap like this. Tired of seeing outrage mobs ruining lives before all the facts come out. I mean, what if it turns out Smollett is innocent? He still says he is and we all have a responsibility to believe him until he either admits guilt or a jury convicts him.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If the network doesn't do something, they risk harming the people they employ as a backlash could make ratings drop. At the end of the day they are a private business and can do what they want.

Personally I prefer networks erring on this side of the question rather than say, covering for pedophiles for decades like the BBC did with Jimmy Saville. Moreover, I don't think he's actually been fired even though getting pulled from the last two episodes is a steep punishment.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont have a responsibility to believe him

 

[Synobun]

He orchestrated the attack so that he wouldn't be killed off on that show.

Seems fair that he gets fired.

 

[Commodore]

I dont have a responsibility to believe him

See I think we do. Why? Because the Constitution is nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper if each one of us doesn't commit ourselves to living by its principles.

 

[Ajidica]

A private enterprise decided they no longer wished to be associated with a public figure who attracted extensive controversy. I'm failing to see the issue here.
While I staunchly believe in innocent until proven guilty*, this hardly seems like a great place to make a stand. Compelling evidence has come out that Smollett arranged a fake hate crime to secure him a larger TV salary, and it seems reasonable for the TV show to not want to be associated with him, in the same way it was reasonable for the crew of that one movie to reshoot all the scenes with Kevin Spacey in it. Sure, Kevin Spacey hasn't been found guilty of anything, but there was enough compelling evidence to make the film crew no longer want to be associated with Spacey.
If it comes out that the Chicago police completely messed up, well, Smollett gets a very nice settlement from Chicago.

*I was friendly with a guy in college who nearly got screwed over because his psycho ex girlfriend went around telling everyone he assaulted her.

EDIT:

Why? Because the Constitution is nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper if each one of us doesn't commit ourselves to living by its principles.

The only legal penalties Smollett has been exposed to are the normal legal penalties that occur when anyone is charged with a crime. Unless you can point to legal rulings or constitutional arguments saying that presumption of innocence means private companies cannot take actions against individuals they no longer wish to be associated with, you may want to rethink your position.

 

[Gori the Grey]

we all have a responsibility to believe him

The courts do.* The public doesn't.

*even they don't a responsibility to believe his protestations of innocence; just not to pre-judge him guilty.

 

[Commodore]

The probelm with the argument that private companies don't have to abide by the Constitution like the government does is that we live in a society that requires employment by those private companies to survive. This effectively creates a situation where merely being charged with a crime can make you unemployable even if you manage to successfully defend yourself in court.

The courts do.* The public doesn't.

*even they don't a responsibility to believe his protestations of innocence; just not to pre-judge him guilty.

But the public does because in any democratic government, the elected officials (the ones who appoint the judges) are a reflection of the electorate. So it's reasonable to assume an electorate that is not committed to certain principles are going to elect officials that aren't committed to those principles who in turn will appoint judges that aren't committed to those principles.

 

[Ajidica]

The probelm with the argument that private companies don't have to abide by the Constitution like the government does is that we live in a society that requires employment by those private companies to survive. This effectively creates a situation where merely being charged with a crime can make you unemployable even if you manage to successfully defend yourself in court.

Is Commodore coming out in favor of a mandatory full employment policy?

Anyhow, the crux of the matter is should a private company be able to fire an employee for what appears to be the employees bad actions?
The answer appears to be yes and is an answer I am comfortable with.
As an (extreme) example, suppose a preschool teacher is charged by the police with sexually abusing children. Most people will wholeheartedly agree that, even though under the law the preschool teacher is innocent, the teacher should not be allowed to continue in that occupation until the case is resolved.
Should a company be able to fire an employee for taking action the company does not want to be associated with? For example, a PR person for a company is reported to be a prominent neo-Nazi who participates in racist rallies. Suppose there is compelling evidence supporting the allegation but the employee denies it. Should the company be allowed to fire the public facing employee for that reason? Once again, yes, and that is an answer I am comfortable with.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But the public does because in any democratic government, the elected officials (the ones who appoint the judges) are a reflection of the electorate. So it's reasonable to assume an electorate that is not committed to certain principles are going to elect officials that aren't committed to those principles who in turn will appoint judges that aren't committed to those principles.

No. I can be perfectly ready not to pre-judge a case should I be called as a juror, and make a judgement on it in advance of the trial if I'm not. I expect all elected officials to continue to honor the presumption of innocence. It's fully established as a legal principle. Any judge who didn't would be removed from office.

 

[NovaKart]

At least he’s actually been investigated. Some famous people lose their career over some unproven accusations dating back decades. Actually it remains to be seen for a lot of people if it’s a career stopper or if it will blow over eventually.

 

[metatron]

If the network doesn't do something, they risk harming the people they employ as a backlash could make ratings drop. At the end of the day they are a private business and can do what they want.

Is this really a credible concern?
Like, is this show some sort of beacon of morality or something?
I mean, i have literally never heard of the show. So, at least as far as my person is concerned it's free marketing.

Personally I prefer networks erring on this side of the question rather than say, covering for pedophiles for decades like the BBC did with Jimmy Saville. Moreover, I don't think he's actually been fired even though getting pulled from the last two episodes is a steep punishment.

Personally i prefer the police and the justice system act like the police and the justice system.
I'm quite sharing in @Commodore's annoyance that this has apparently been outsourced to people's employers, the hacky media and the derps in charge of facebook and twitter.

 

[Camikaze]

There are two things.

The first is that the presumption of innocence does not mean that we should blindly assume that someone is innocent when there is compelling evidence to the contrary. There would be something seriously wrong with the law enforcement system if the public could not safely assume that most people who have been arrested and are facing trial are probably guilty. The presumption of innocence just means that in a court of law, the accused should be treated as if they are innocent, with the burden of proof on the prosecution.

The second is that it often seems in the US that the solution to every problem is a good firing. Whenever something goes wrong with a company, you see a lot of demands that someone should lose their job for it. That's a pretty crappy approach to labour. To the extent that the complaint here is that employers tend to be too ready to cut employees loose at the first sign of trouble, that's fair enough. I don't think this case is the best example.

 

[Cheetah]

we live in a society that requires employment by those private companies to survive

All I'm hearing is that private companies have too much power. The solution is to break them down and heavily regulate.

in any democratic government, the elected officials (the ones who appoint the judges)

In Norway the bureaucrats in the Justice department and the union of Judges compile shortlist of candidates, and the government simply approves. And afterwards they can't be easily fired.

The principles of the people may waver from time to time, but that is why we have representatives, professionals, laws and regulations.

 

[metalhead]

See I think we do. Why? Because the Constitution is nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper if each one of us doesn't commit ourselves to living by its principles.

Which part of the constitution compels private citizens to extend a presumption of innocence to people accused of wrongdoing?

There would be something seriously wrong with the law enforcement system if the public could not safely assume that most people who have been arrested and are facing trial are probably guilty.

Here I actually agree with Commodore. Not to the extreme he argues, but I believe society would function better if the public did not assume that people arrested by police were probably guilty.

The standard for arrest and even putting someone on trial is not especially high. In cases where a person is obviously guilty, the obviousness of their guilt becomes clear pretty quickly and they plead out, in almost all cases. This system, as we know, is ripe for abuse, and I believe it is ripe for abuse precisely because faith in law enforcement is way too high.

I think it is fine for private citizens to reach their own conclusions about guilt or innocence based on evidence, but I think people should always be skeptical of guilt until there is evidence available that make guilt likely.

 

[Arwon]

I think people should always be skeptical of guilt until there is evidence available that make guilt likely

You think that evidence doesn't exist here though?

 

[Arwon]

There are two things.

The first is that the presumption of innocence does not mean that we should blindly assume that someone is innocent when there is compelling evidence to the contrary. There would be something seriously wrong with the law enforcement system if the public could not safely assume that most people who have been arrested and are facing trial are probably guilty. The presumption of innocence just means that in a court of law, the accused should be treated as if they are innocent, with the burden of proof on the prosecution.

The second is that it often seems in the US that the solution to every problem is a good firing. Whenever something goes wrong with a company, you see a lot of demands that someone should lose their job for it. That's a pretty crappy approach to labour. To the extent that the complaint here is that employers tend to be too ready to cut employees loose at the first sign of trouble, that's fair enough. I don't think this case is the best example.

I'd also add to this that the absence of a guilty verdict does not mean someone did not do a thing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

At least he’s actually been investigated. Some famous people lose their career over some unproven accusations dating back decades. Actually it remains to be seen for a lot of people if it’s a career stopper or if it will blow over eventually.

The key is on famous for me. Celebrity actors are the most public-facing employees imagineable. I think it can be unreasonable when Becky in accounting loses her job over a viral video but that's mostly because she works in accounting rather than being on camera. And in any case when someone is accused of a crime or misdeed so horrible it can be best for everyone within the company to not have to be around them or deal with that fallout. Add in video or written evidence like youtube or tweets and all of a sudden you don't need a court ruling to personally feel someone is guilty and not wish to associate with them.

I mean if I had to go to work everyday with Becky in accounting after watching her scream the N-word at 12 year olds for selling lemonade, I would not be happy about it. Some people are so odious you don't want anything to do with them and that should be taken into account in these situations.

Is this really a credible concern?

Yes.

Like, is this show some sort of beacon of morality or something?

Nope, not at all. People in the states boycot lots of companies over even less woke stuff. That's the concern the producers would be addressing by suspending Smollet, not that the show has lost its way as some paragon of social justice.

I mean, i have literally never heard of the show. So, at least as far as my person is concerned it's free marketing.

It would be quite an unreasonable gamble on the part of the producers to assume the growth in new audience from this scandal would outweigh the potential loss of their core audience.

There are two things.

The first is that the presumption of innocence does not mean that we should blindly assume that someone is innocent when there is compelling evidence to the contrary. There would be something seriously wrong with the law enforcement system if the public could not safely assume that most people who have been arrested and are facing trial are probably guilty. The presumption of innocence just means that in a court of law, the accused should be treated as if they are innocent, with the burden of proof on the prosecution.

The second is that it often seems in the US that the solution to every problem is a good firing. Whenever something goes wrong with a company, you see a lot of demands that someone should lose their job for it. That's a pretty crappy approach to labour. To the extent that the complaint here is that employers tend to be too ready to cut employees loose at the first sign of trouble, that's fair enough. I don't think this case is the best example.

I'm not making any argument against the idea that labor needs more protection in the US. I just don't think this is a good example of overreach on the part of capital. I find this reaction completely reasonable.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Doesn't Terrance Howard work on that show? He's had two different restraining orders against him and admitted to hitting his wife in front of his children. He was also arrested with some serious charges in 2001 and I also seem to recall him making a lot of homophobic remarks in the past.

In any case his example shows that these sorts of things are not necessarily career-enders and this show isn't above giving someone with a checkered past a job. But they do have to respond to this because it's in their own economic interests to do so. As of right now I don't even think they've fired Smollet, just suspended him. I don't see what is unreasonable about that given what is already publicly known about this incident.

 

[Synobun]

@Commodore and @metatron are the target demographic of Smollett's orchestration. He did it because they were going to remove his character (i.e. fire him) and he didn't want that to happen, as he quite likes making a lot of money. He orchestrates an attack so that the producers can't get rid of him, in fear of being labelled as Trump apologists and supporters of what happened to him. How could they rob Smollett of his work after such a misfortune?

So this comes to light, and they understandably go, "Huh, that's not very cash money of him, we don't want him around anymore."

That's reasonable. And yet... what a gross overreach by the show. How could they rob Smollett of his work? That poor man.