Man, can we please leave the tremendously bad takes in other thread? I used to think “well, if they aren’t convicted in a court of law there’s literally nothing we can do!” was the worst take a rational person could make (there’s at least a logic there, if incredibly myopic); if only I had known how much lower that bar could go.
Look, the standards of proof in criminal law is as high as it is for a reason: the consequences are incredibly severe. You literally lose your freedom. There is no way for any social consequences to come anywhere close to that level of severity, so the idea that the standards of proof should be at the same level is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with the nature of the crime making meeting that high standard incredibly difficult (though it does explain why it continues to be so pervasive, and why survivors of such crimes still face so much stigma for coming forward); and everything to do with the standards of proof to be met for social ostracism are (or at least ought to be) lower than the standards for facing jail time. Is the evidence that has been assembled so far enough to convict him in a court of law? I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. What I do know is that the evidence is pretty damning at this point, and that’s enough for the collective community to take action.
One last thing, before it comes up: the community has a greater responsibility for keeping its vulnerable members safe from predators than it has to rehabilitating predators. This doesn’t mean rehabilitation isn’t possible, just that the only person responsible for that rehabilitation is the perpetrator themselves.
