We need to let the law do its work

WE need to recover the concept of presumption of innocence and let our justice system do its work, writes Jane Fynes-Clinton. It’s too easy to ruin a reputation on untried and untested say so.

WHATEVER happened to innocent until proven guilty?

When did the power shift to the court of public opinion?

Our system of civil structures still determines the truth yet we are often quick to prejudge, particularly online.

Where allegations of sexual misconduct are concerned, the tide has most definitely turned and the public is judge, jury and executioner.

All on the untried and untested say-so of others.

Allegations of sexual harassment have become a social media trend, prompted by the Harvey Weinstein claims and fuelled by the #metoo wave that led to Time magazine prizes, and continue to prompt a lot of social justice backslapping.

If a man spoke out (or tweeted, posted or hashtagged) about unwanted treatment from a female co-worker, would the response be the same?

I think not. It would likely be met with sniggers and smiles: not black dresses at the next major awards event.

The lack of equality in treatment is startling.

We need to pause and take a breath.

When claims of sexual impropriety are aired, mud sticks.

Claims made by alleged victims are immediately accepted as truth.

But, as well, the moment a person calls for caution about a woman’s claims, they are called misogynistic, ultraconservative and accused of victim blaming, when that is not so at all.

The allegations against Kevin Spacey have been numerous, but the court of public opinion is not where he should be tried. (Pic: Justin Tallis/AFP)

The law has spent decades finetuning the protection of innocent until proven guilty.

For example, it’s the reason Queensland has laws (under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act) that prevent the identification of a person accused of a serious sex offence from being named until after they have been through the committal process and have been ordered to stand trial.

It is also the reason, under most states’ laws, victims are not allowed to be identified unless they consent to identifying themselves.

Tearing others down with untested allegations hurts more than just the accused.

It offends against one of the core principles of a civil society — the presumption of innocence.

This presumption is said to be a “golden thread” that runs through the fabric of our system of justice.

And it is incredibly easy to ruin a Hollywood celebrity: all you need is a social media post about him doing something lewd that you did not like and he is dispatched with the press of a button.

Some celebrities have been brought down by multiple claims. Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and Matt Lauer among them.

But some are tarnished and erased by a single post about a memory from decades before.

It seems to me that #metoo is in danger of morphing from being socially progressive to becoming a tool for public shaming, an additional layer of stigma slapped on those accused of wickedness.

The law is required not to prejudge, but we seem to have built a standard, particularly online, where we can and should presume the worst.

We must recover the benefit of the doubt.

Our legal system and standards are not static structures and ideas; they have been nipped and tucked over time to reflect what societies have deemed to be the civilised ways of doing things.

But online, people seem to be pushing this aside as legal mumbo-jumbo and are not blinking before tweeting “he is revolting” on hearing someone else’s untested claim.

Of course we can have our own opinions about another person – celebrity or otherwise – but is it really necessary to jump on social media and share that view with the entire world?

For the sake of collective sense and sensibility, I suggest we rediscover discretion, balance, cool heads and remember that golden thread.

Dr Jane Fynes-Clinton is a journalist and lecturer at the University of the Sunshine Coast.