1. By the public at large it should not be treated in any regard, false or not.
2. The state is the only authorized monopoly of violence and they should treat unproven and untrue as identical, and the only place where that decision is made is in a courtroom.
3. The 'believe the victims' activists however are rightfully (IMHO) suggesting to break principle #2 because there is institutional and systemic supression of the rule of law being applied properly. I would consider this civil disobedience.
4. The state needs to get it's act together and administer the law properly. Only through reform can they regain the legitimacy that is required for #2.
5. Those reforms should focus on racism, sexism and classism. It should focus on what part of the law is too ambiguous for either law enforcement and the judiciary branch.
6. This might include actually blinding the court, i.e. offer only verifiable facts that are admissable and can not be utilized as widgets for race, gender or social economic positions.
If you don't think the legal system has a problem ask yourself why every lawyer recommends the defendant to wear a suit to court. How could it matter if the process was assumed to be without bias.
> The state is the only authorized monopoly of violence and they should treat unproven and untrue as identical, and the only place where that decision is made is in a courtroom.
This is completely wrong. If the state treated all accusations as untrue prior to conviction, they would not send armed men to haul you to prison, bar you from release unless you can bail yourself out (or sometimes not at all), and not have a prosecutor charge you with a crime.
This is no petty distinction. In order to function in its judiciary role, the state in fact must distinguish between plausibly true accusations and not plausible accusations, and must treat certain plausibly true accusations as "unproven" but not untrue, and take steps to make sure the accused does not flee into another country or commit further crimes.
Although arresting and jailing someone is not being justice being administered, it is facilitating justice and fact finding and it itself is indeed an act of violence.
The legal system may have problems but that is about implementation, the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, that no harm should come to the innocent, that all are equal before the law, and that truth comes before all other concerns; these are fine principles and I would say that problems with the legal system mostly stem from straying from these principles. Perhaps you disagree?
I somewhat disagree. It's indeed in the implemention of the principles where things go wrong, but I do believe that requires reform.
In between golden principles and everyday court are a lot of pragmatic laws and regulations. That is where I would like to see reform. To help the system full fill it's ideals and principles, especially the blindness of the justice.
Sorry, don't see how 3 in your "syllogism" is remotely true. If 10 employees of yours come to you and accuse another employee of sexual harassment and you fire that employee, at no point were you acting as the state or using violence.
Nor was justice being served at any point. Depending on the terms of the employment contract, firing anyone is just business as usual.
The problematic part is that sexual harassment is a crime though. Both the act and accusation warrant court. Not to fire someone from their job, but to prosecute them under criminal law.
2. The state is the only authorized monopoly of violence and they should treat unproven and untrue as identical, and the only place where that decision is made is in a courtroom.
3. The 'believe the victims' activists however are rightfully (IMHO) suggesting to break principle #2 because there is institutional and systemic supression of the rule of law being applied properly. I would consider this civil disobedience.
4. The state needs to get it's act together and administer the law properly. Only through reform can they regain the legitimacy that is required for #2.
5. Those reforms should focus on racism, sexism and classism. It should focus on what part of the law is too ambiguous for either law enforcement and the judiciary branch.
6. This might include actually blinding the court, i.e. offer only verifiable facts that are admissable and can not be utilized as widgets for race, gender or social economic positions.
If you don't think the legal system has a problem ask yourself why every lawyer recommends the defendant to wear a suit to court. How could it matter if the process was assumed to be without bias.