 |
| Image: Imagesource |
A criminal proceeding including a wealthy
person such as Harvey Weinstein will, without a doubt, become very
costly and consume a lot of court's time. For public figures such as
Mr. Weinstein or Tomi Metsäketo (in Finland) publicity is their main
source of income. Mr. Metsäketo, for example, was immediately
relieved of his part in a recent television show (”Tähdet,
Tähdet”) after the alleged facts broke out.
The same thing
happened with Mr. Smith in Finland, whose contract with
Nelonen-tv-station was breached by the station as soon as the news
broke out of Mr. Smith filming some of his sex partners without their
consent in his apartment. For people making their mainstay income
from publicity, a social
stigma
is catastrophical.
This obviously applies to everyone of us on
some level. Employers seek out information of the people they wish to
hire. Social and ethnic values are becoming more important as the
customers are interested in the values of the companies. A social
stigma may well produce an obstacle for employment.
The proceedings
in producing a stigma have a transaction
cost
of nearly zero and are hence easy to smite with. An individual, on the
other hand, is expected with a certain degree of scrutiny before
claiming an action. Crying wolf while pressing charges can have a
backfiring result. Social stigmatization produces an awkward problem
for justice. A mere hint of guilt is enough to cast a shadow of doubt
for a company contracting with a possible sexual harasser. The
investor quickly disappear as they do not want to be linked to a
scandal. That behavior forces the TV-stations, for example, to judge
mere rumors with extreme prejudice. James Franco, allegedly, lost an oscar because of allegations of sexual misconduct, which were later amended as exaggerated.
At the end of last year the
Washington Post reported1
(27.11.17) it was approached by a woman who made accusations against
a US senator about sexual harrassment. The accusations turned out to
be falsified. When a paper writes a correction the damage is
partially done. Often the correction may be a lot smaller than the
actual case. Especially in the time of digital media, where the
'yellow press' make their income through clicks on the websites and
advertisement. The paper may have minutes to publish a story if it
wants to be the first one. The background checks on sources can
become negligently ignored.
The stigmatization in social media violates the Principles of Legality. It must be borne in mind even when the stigmatization offers possibly the most cost-efficient way of prosecution. Yet there is no due process related to the cried out claims of harassment, or other alleged crimes. On the contrary it steals away the society's compassion from the real victims of crimes.
Dr. George P. Fletcher addresses2
the importance of treating an accused criminal equally as a member of
the same society where the victim is positioned. There can be no
mistake to this as it would immediately start treating the victim’s
rights with greater importance than of those what are granted to the
defendant. Only the real victims of crimes should merit the
compassion of our society. It is important for the society itself to
maintain a predictable future of judgments in criminal law. It
cannot be distracted by heart-bleeding stories of those who are
afraid to walk the streets in fear of crime. After all the treatment,
the punitive institution offers, is executed upon the criminals and
not on the victims of crimes.
- Thank you, excuse me and good bye, Puolihalvaantunutkokki.
Viitteet:
1) A
Woman Approached the Post with Dramatic – and False - Tale About
Roy Moore. - Washington Post. Available online:
https://www.washingtonpost.com
(viewed on 30.11.17)
2) G.
Fletcher. Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. Oxford. 1994, p 39.
