The court of law has taken the spotlight recently by way of pop singer Kesha’s court case and the Netflix original docu-series, “Making a Murderer,” among other things. But aside from the court of law, we’ve also seen a parallel rise in the court of public opinion, thanks in large part to the Internet.
With misinformation being thrown every which way over the web, it’s nearly impossible not to draw conclusions even before any cases are heard. When people who claim to be innocent are accused of murder and a pop star is claiming to have been sexual assaulted, it can be easy to forget that this country runs off the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
“The foundation for justice in this country is that guilt needs to be proven. The court of public opinion, however, makes it a lot harder for that to happen sometimes,” said one Leader staff member. “Rushing to judgment without a sufficient understanding of the facts in any particular case will cloud that judgment.”
Does that mean, then, that the public was wrong to go up in arms when a judge ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to prove sexual assault and free Kesha from her SONY contract in civil court before her sexual assualt trial takes place?
“At the same time, a rape accusation needs to be taken seriously and handled respectfully for any potential victims,” continued the staff member. “Whether automatic victim-blaming or victim-believing is the bigger problem — I’m not going to be the judge. But the best we can do is acknowledge the gravity of scenarios like these and treat them accordingly.”
The Leader feels that the biggest problem is the lack of understanding that the public has of the whole case. For example, how many people thought that Kesha’s court appearance on Feb. 19 determined whether or not her producer, known as “Dr. Luke,” raped her or not?
According to The Washington Post, what actually happened is that “New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich denied Kesha’s request for a preliminary injunction in the case, which would have allowed the singer to record songs outside of her contract until the case is finalized.” But, regardless, the majority of the Internet seemed to believe that who’s guilty and who’s innocent in this case was so obvious that the judge made a mistake. And maybe she did. We just don’t know yet.
“I think the Internet, in a way, makes us feel like we know everything. People like to pull these law terms from online and think they know what they are talking about,” said a second Leader staff member. “But I think we need to take rape cases like these seriously. A lot of people don’t talk about their own rape because they know how the law will treat them. No one takes into account the emotional aspect of it and just want physical proof like on SVU.”
But in reality, is the ideology behind “innocent until proven guilty” nothing but just that — an ideal? Another Leader staff member pointed out that it can only protect someone so much.
“One doesn’t simply negate the victim’s accusation; however, it is also important to understand the severity of accusing someone of rape,” the staff member said. “You are ruining someone’s reputation and life. Innocent until proven guilty can only go so far when accusing someone of rape because their reputation will be over regardless of being innocent or not.”
Finding the balance between analyzing whatever evidence has been made public and taking into consideration the situation and circumstance, we feel, is the best way to form opinions about any sort of case. The Internet is not the enemy here. In fact, it can be the best ally if used correctly.
“When we read [one or two articles] online, I believe people think that is the whole story and then form their opinion off of that,” said a third Leader staff member. “I believe innocent until proven guilty is important because if we did not have that and the law just convicted someone based off of what people said [with no] evidence, a lot would go wrong.”
So get information from multiple sources and feel free to do some investigating that way. Hopefully, ideally, the facts will speak for themselves. Not everyone is telling the truth, but not everyone is lying.