Amanda Marcotte talks about the value of using a preponderance of evidence standard in the court of public opinion as opposed to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
No feminists that I know of have ever in sincerity said that the court should throw out the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in proving a crime. However, as Brady points out, that’s a criminal standard. It’s perfectly reasonable to have other standards for other situations, such as determining if you feel someone in your community is guilty and needs to be shunned as a danger to women. Or hell, just determining if someone is guilty enough to lose a lawsuit. In civil court, a “preponderance of evidence” standard applies. Remember that Allen wasn’t able to get custody of his children—the judge couldn’t prove he assaulted Dylan Farrow, but it was enough evidence that it was reasonable to cut off access to her. As Brady says, once you get out of the formal court situation that has an accuser and an accused and a high standard of evidence, you are in a social situation where it’s more a game of “who’s the liar”.
But instead of rehashing his points, I want to talk about the practical effects of applying the “he said/she said, and we’ll never know the truth so we can’t take action” standard in the world outside the courtroom. You almost never hear about what that means as it plays out in real life, but I’ve had it happen to me, seen it happen to others, and have read about it repeatedly, so I would like to explain how it goes.
How it goes is that he continues as normal and she loses all her friends, basically because he’s still fun and she’s a drag.
This is the price of applying the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level of proof to all accusations of rape or domestic violence made in a community context instead of a courtroom context. It may seem like it’s about not choosing one over the other, but functionally, it’s choosing the accused over the accuser. And maybe some people feel that shunning someone without rock solid proof of wrongdoing is so wrong that functionally shunning anyone who tries to out an abuser without such proof is the price to pay. Maybe that principle is so sound that it’s worth sacrificing the well-being of most abuse victims in order to protect the very rare man who has a cleverly manipulative ex-girlfriend who does manage to convince people he’s guilty when he’s innocent without actually offering proof. I can see it. This is a difficult question.
But I look at the Woody Allen situation and feel that it really shows that preponderance of evidence standard really is a better one for the social situation than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Can you prove it in court that he molested Dylan Farrow? No. But you can build a case, brick by brick, that he’s probably guilty due to his creepy behavior, his tendency to date underage girls, his willingness to use Mia Farrow’s children as a pool to draw sex partners from, his well-documented obsession with Dylan that included molestation-esque behavior in front of witnesses, eyewitness testimony from the victim, and a court order denying him custody. Not by criminal court standards. But by civil court standards. And therefore enough to believe that he really shouldn’t be enjoying the life that he does as a well-regarded fixture in wealthy, privileged social circles. (Or being, as he was, allowed to adopt more daughters.)
I’ve wondered about that. Why was he allowed to adopt more daughters? He was denied custody of the children he’d already adopted; why was he approved for adoption?
Anyway. That’s how I see it. No, I don’t know; no, I don’t personally have the evidence that would convict him; but there is that list that Amanda gives. It seems a good deal more likely that he did what people say he did than it is that he didn’t.
Because he’s a rich white dude, and rich white dudes always get every benefit of the doubt.
Agreed.
Let’s not forget everyone knows that OJ Simpson is guilty and he was convicted in the civil court instead of the criminal case.
(Yes OJ virtually came out and admitted it but then Woody Allen has pretty much implied a confession in one of his comments too.)
Marcottes’s case isn’t helped by the tendentiousness of this sort of thing:
As far as I can tell, this just amounts to ‘he is probably guilty because he married Soon Yi Previn and I think that relationship is creepy’. He didn’t have a ‘tendency to date underage girls’, in fact I don’t think he has ever dated an underage girl (correct me somebody if I am wrong) and he didn’t ‘use Mia Farrow’s children as a pool to draw sex partners from’, he just married one of her children. Any marriage or sexual relationship sounds disgusting if you describe it like that. I am sure Marcotte does not consider herself to have ‘used her partner’s family’ as a ‘pool to draw sex partners from’. In other words, not only is there no evidence in the legal sense, there is nothing here at all except whether you think it was OK to marry Soon Yi Previn. From out here we really ave nothing to go on.
Yeah, Marcotte is probably not having sex with any children of her partner.
Most people don’t. That’s kind of the point.
Allen did. It’s rather aberrant behavior, though obviously not illegal. Some other behaviors were likewise aberrant.
And then there’s Dylan’s testimony. Testimony is obviously a form of evidence. An important fact you seem to be leaving out.
The thing is, criminal-court levels of proof are only required sometimes. They’re only required for rich, much-admired dudes. People lower down on the totem pole get condemned on flimsier evidence all the time.
Just one trivial example that pops to mind: the ivoryheaded marketing drone who tweeted the racist thing about AIDS before boarding her flight to south Africa and was fired in a matter of seconds. There was no, “Yes, but, how racist is she really?” “She’s never done anything racist.” “Well, you say she has, but can you prove it?”
I’m sure everybody can think up dozens of much better examples.
That’s why the whole proof thing is more about protecting power rather than rights.
Is that really the point? Because it amounts to demonising people who do things that ‘most people don’t’. There has been a lot of that over the years, especially affecting gay people, and it wasn’t good. Of course neither of us know whether Marcotte fell in love with and married one of the adult children of an ex-partner, but I think we would agree that it is none of our business and wouldn’t make her a sex criminal if she had.
Yes, the child’s testimony is evidence, but that is the whole of it. Marcotte’s ‘brick by brick’ claim falls apart at the slightest investigation.
No, Minow, it does not. Nobody is saying “Most people don’t” is always and everywhere a conclusive argument. As usual with you, that’s a tiresome and willfully literal reading. That’s your one trick. It’s a dull trick. Do better or go away.
Well, but the “creepy behavior” extends to more than his relationship with Soon Yi. He was in counseling for inappropriate behavior around Dylan two years before his relationship with Mia Farrow fell apart. As far as I know, allegations that he followed her around, brought her into bed with him and cuddled her dressed only in his underwear, stuck his thumb in her mouth, and generally made her uncomfortable, have not been denied, and some at least of those behaviors were witnessed by third parties.