Ampersand has an excellent post up about the Duke rape case. In it, she discusses the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and has some very smart things to say:
But “innocent until proven guilty” is a courtroom standard. My opinion is not the same as a courtroom, and blog posts don’t put anyone in prison. Nothing about the American system of justice requires ordinary citizens to refrain from having opinions; and it’s not inconsistant to want Courts to adhere to “beyond any reasonable doubt” while holding my personal opinions to a less stringent standard.
Some time back, we (my then-husband and I) were aware of a member of the Pagan community who had been accused of child molestation. The case was working its way through the courts and no verdict had been reached. We found out that the accused was going to be at a Pagan event during which children were ordinarily given a lot of freedom to roam. We contacted people in charge of both the event and the property, asking that this person be banned from this event. We were refused, and what the people we spoke to all said was “innocent until proven guilty.”
I was furious. Livid is a good word. If you’ve ever seen me mad, you might have come up with livid as the right word.
And what I said to my husband is “innocent until proven guilty” is for courts. For parents, the rule is dangerous until proven safe.
Pagans are so pluralistic, so free, that they sometimes fail to see danger in their midst. They bend over backwards to be fair, because we are a people who have suffered too much unfair treatment. But as a mom, I don’t bend in that direction. I bend over forwards, in a protective huddle. I make my child, and my community’s children, safe to the best of my ability. That’s my job.
The accused was convicted, and served some years in jail. He is now free and again has access to Pagan events. A glitch in the registration system causes him to show up on some sex offender lists but not others, affording him more freedom of movement than I, for one, find comfortable.
But again, the law is not community. People feel they have to make him welcome at events, because he served his time, and is legally able to attend the events. But legal is not personal. He’s still dangerous until proven safe.
I agree with you on most of this. The only part I am going to comment on is this:
The orginizers of the event were probably trying to give this man the benefit of the doubt. Had he a history of being accused of child sex offenses and none were proven, I probably would have refused him entry to the gathering. But if this was the first offense he was accused of, I would probably also have taken that stanse.
How many times is a member of the community, online or off, accused of horrendous crimes which under the scruitiny of the truth no more than standard behavior if odd? How many times has someone been accused of mollesting a child which never happened?
While I agree that it’s “dangerous until proven safe” for parents, that is on the parent’s head to enforce, not on society.
I was at a pagan gathering where the rule was changed to “everyone is responsible for the safety of any children at this gathering”. I left to never return for that reason. IMO, I am not responsible for somoene else’s child. I am not a guardian, I have no rights to discipline them, I am simply an adult. If the gathering wishes to have a place for children to be safe at, hire a babysitter. I left my child at home because I didn’t think she would fit in, therefore you should do the same with your child. If this inconvieniences you, oh well, that’s parenthood.
I am 100% responsible for my child’s safety at an event. I would never put that on the event’s head. But I don’t really think that “benefit of the doubt” for an accused molestor needs to extend to freedom to roam around children.
Suppose he’d been found not guilty by the courts. What harm was done to him by banning him until the whole thing was over? He’d have missed one festival. Oh, boo hoo. Isn’t that a small price to pay for erring on the side of caution where children are concerned? What possible harm could be done in asking him to stay home until he was found not guilty?
And again, this is a person who was known to me personally. I wasn’t just picking random accused molestors out of the newspaper to call the festival about. I had strong reason to believe he was guilty, and I communicated those reasons.
… and that is fine, really. YOu took what action you felt was appropriate to safeguard your children.
What damage? Let’s say that this is someone like Isaac. He’s accused of theft, may even be guilty. Arrested and arraigned. He is prominent enough in the community that his absence will be noted and commented upon. THey bar him from a gathering, and people start asking why. It eventually comes out that he was arrested. So the implication at that point is not that the event coordinators were acting to protect people in case of, but that they acted on the certainty that he couldn’t be trusted.
Which does irreperable harm to his rep.
I have seen this happen, not just to BNPs, but to others as well.
Ultimately, if you feel your child will be in danger by attending this gathering because of people who will be there, babysitter. Or, don’t go. Same solution.
And yes, it does come to 6 of one, half dozen of the other. The arguments are strong on both sides.
I would rather restrict my child’s freedom than have mine restricted with the best of intentions (were I accused), so I come down on the side of “the benefit of the doubt”.
It is, frankly, silly to think someone as famouos as Isaac could be arrested and have people not know about it, however festival organizers acted.
Reputations can be mended. Molested children suffer their entire lives. Six of one doesn’t BEGIN to measure the cost. If a person is banned one year and rumors spread, those same rumors are answered by allowing him the following year.
And again, we’re not talking about a frivolous accusation or a rumor. We’re talking about someone who has already been arrested.
By using theft as your example, you minimize the seriousness. Would you feel as comfortable with a murderer? A serial rapist? At what point does protecting the community become more important than the “benefit of the doubt”?
But that’s the point, what about those who don’t know him, and who would spread tales?
The six of one was our difference in opinion on this. I’m for the freedom, you seem to be for the safety. Different sides of the issue, and while you have points, I don’t want to give up the liberties for some safety. If it had been me in your position, I would have done the warning, kept my child away from the event, and warned those around me with kids. Once he’s convicted, however, lock him in the deepest obliouette there is and keep him there.
And yes, I would feel the same with an accused murderer, an accused rapist, an accused anything. Until there is proof, I won’t restrict their freedom.
And reputations can be rebuilt, but it takes something like a year for every month that the rumor is allowed to persist unanswered. I’m going through this now with another community.
Isaac was an example.
Steps are taken to minimize the opportunities and the vulnerability to the man you cite, but you can’t, with honor, sequester and shun him until it’s proven, and that includes jail time and so on.
Enjoying the debate, hope it’s not upsetting you too much.
You can shun with honor. That’s Ampersand’s point. I can shun whomever I want to shun. The law requires a higher standard. But I can shun you if I don’t like your face.
As someone who has been the target of gossip I have a great deal of sympathy for an innocent person in this situation but when kids are involved
we just can’t take any chances period.