The premise of being innocent until proven guilty. The People V PWR BTTM

Ben - PWR BTTM

The premise of being innocent until proven guilty is one that has been readily embraced by people for many years.

It is a cornerstone of civilized behaviour.

And it’s little wonder that it has been so readily adopted by countries when they decide their laws, because to put it simply most of us can fundamentally understand that being blamed for something that we are innocent of is inherently wrong.

No one should carry the responsibility for a crime that they have not committed, nor participated at any level in.

So to ensure that this does not happen we require allegations to be backed up with evidence, eye witness accounts - and sometimes even the burden of proof can be accepted - before coming to a judgement.

However an allegation by one party about another of a crime being committed is not enough to warrant a guilty verdict. Even if true.

And that is as it should be.

It has to be, because in the words of William Blackstone "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

This need for proof of an allegation is something that is put in place to protect us all.

As an abstract concept some may well wish to debate the finer points, but if they were subjected to a false allegation, whether deliberate or not, then it is entirely likely that they would be fully supportive of the premise.

And yet with the social media platforms allowing anyone and everyone to add their weight to a discussion on the guilt of an individual after an allegation is made, it does seem that proof is often something that is considered non essential.

Guilt or innocence is decided on by a gut a feeling based on the third, fourth, or fifth hand words of another commentator.

To illustrate the point we can look at the recent furore surrounding the band PWR BTTM.

An allegation was made within a private group online that a band member was a sexual predator, and sexual abuser.

In the social media court you will be presumed....

This allegation was then carried by another party to the public via social media, with that then drawing media attention that provided such a negative perception of the band that they have since been dropped by their label, lost gigs, lost touring members, had videos pulled from Vevo and YouTube, and it looks highly possible that the end is nigh for them as a band.

And yet if this situation is considered rationally, what we have is one person has made an allegation, and through the involvement of others on social media a guilty verdict has been delivered.

Evidence and proof have been cast aside as unimportant as the people have spoken.

And of course the cost has been high for not just the target of the allegations, but also for others who are now considered as collateral damage of the storm.

So it really does need to be asked.
Is this really what we are now embracing as acceptable.

Is this another example of the death knell of the ideal of us all being innocent until we are proven guilty?

None of that is to say that the band member is innocent, and nothing written here should automatically be considered a defence of any individual, but more so it is the defence of a safeguard that protects us all.

Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until the evidence shows otherwise, but that basic right does not seem to have been extended to the band member in this instance.

Part of the allegations shared on social media touched on the band members father acting inappropriately at live shows towards young audience members.

Again an allegation, but even if there was evidence to support this, we must ask ourselves what is the connection between this and the main allegation?

What has the alleged behaviour of the father got to do with the son?

Similarly an image of the band member posing beside a swastika drawn in the sand on a beach was shared too.

Again, while distasteful, it has no relevance to the main allegation.

Imagine a court case and that allegation about his father, and that photograph being submitted as evidence.

How long would it take before a judge had them thrown out as irrelevant?

Again is any of that acceptable?

And again it must be stressed that no guilt or innocence is being attributed to anyone here.

In fact it could be said that the manner in which the allegation was made has ill served the needs of the individual who originally claimed to have been abused.

A tiny bit of empathy for all involved can go a long way. Maybe that is the lesson to be learnt here.

Just some food for thought.

For more background there is an article here, and you can read the bands statement surrounding this here.

For further reading a recommendation would be the Jon Ronson book ‘So you have been publicly shamed’ which is obviously available in all good book shops.

Advise and support for those who have suffered sexual abuse and rape can be found here.