Guilty until proven innocent

[OffspringEverything]

What do you think?

If someone says someoene did something wrong, who needs to prove their side? Should the accused prove their innocence? Is the burden on the accuser?

What should happen if someone accuses and refuses to present any evidence?

[1713540200]

1713540200

[1713540200]

1713540200

[Blitzboy]

How do you understand an accusation? If I have never met you, I came in front of you and said you were guilty, would anyone believe me? The accuser must give sufficient evidence to prove it, otherwise it doesn't have any value at all. An accusation without evidence will look like a sheet of paper between a pile of rubbish, it's worthless

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Unless OP tells us exactly what he's really talking about, this thread is useless.  Obviously he's got a beef with one or more members who probably tagged his main account or something like that, but he's going about this the wrong way.

What kind of accusation are you talking about, OP?  Is it from a DT member, is it even from someone on this forum?  You really have to give more details if you expect intelligent responses.  But in general, anyone here can accuse anyone of anything.  But unless the evidence is convincing, people won't pay any attention to it. 

Is the burden on the accuser?

Yes, the burden is on the accuser.  Again, I'd like to know why exactly you're asking this.

[hacker1001101001]

In legal terms, yes burden of proof is on the accuser.

The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute

Source: Wikipedia: Burden of proof (law)

On Bitcointalk,

I don't think so is the case always, some people with higher powers on DT tend to ignore this.

[OffspringEverything]

What kind of accusation are you talking about, OP?  Is it from a DT member, is it even from someone on this forum?  

Does this matter? Would your stance change if the person accusing is on DT?

Is the burden on the accuser?

Yes, the burden is on the accuser.  Again, I'd like to know why exactly you're asking this.

For a though experiment. I am conducting research, and wish to get some opinions.

On Bitcointalk,

I don't think so is the case always, some people with higher powers on DT tend to ignore this.

Do you think it is good for "DT" to ignore burden of proof? Why or why not?

[Timelord2067]

You created this account on the 13h of December 2019 and waited until today to activate it... Uh-huh...

For a though experiment.

Probably a thorough experiment... 

(isn't that right QS?)

[hacker1001101001]

Do you think it is good for "DT" to ignore burden of proof? Why or why not?

Ignoring burden of proof on the accuser is just like operating with double standards and hidden agendas in one way. So no it not good for anybody, not just DTs.

[hilariousetc]

What do you think?

If someone says someoene did something wrong, who needs to prove their side? Should the accused prove their innocence? Is the burden on the accuser?

What should happen if someone accuses and refuses to present any evidence?

This isn't a court of law and essentially anyone can create an accusation of wrongdoing here, but they should be taken on a case by case basis and on the evidence or lack thereof presented. If someone creates a thread without any evidence then why would you care? Just ignore it. Someone could create a thread against me proclaiming me to be a scammer, but without any evidence it should and likely would be ignored. However, if someone presented some worthy evidence then it should be acknowledged and can be investigated by others. I can choose to respond or not to either instances as that's my choice but ignoring valid accusations probably wouldn't look good and people can make their own opinions on that.

What kind of accusation are you talking about, OP?  Is it from a DT member, is it even from someone on this forum?  

Does this matter? Would your stance change if the person accusing is on DT?

Well it would help to know what issue you're complaining about because each case is unique and without more details we likely can't be conclusive in answering your question. You might have a valid case or not. For Instance, The-Devil seems to be proclaiming his innocence and that he's been abused and hard done by: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215876.0

But given the evidence presented only he seems to think he's done nothing wrong, but obviously others disagree.

[eddie13]

I suppose it depends on what level of proof fulfills the burden of the situation..

A preponderance of circumstantial evidence is usually enough..

It's not like you are being kidnapped and locked in a box,or sentences to death here.. Nobody is fining anyone amounts of money/property and using violence to enforce its payment..

Physically locking you in a box, physically taking your property in front of your face at duress of violence, or even physically taking your life, is a lot different than banning you from a forum, or red tagging your account, so the burden of proof is less..

Well, for the USA anyway..
Probably many backwards shitholes out there will lock you in a box and take your life for less burden of proof than we usually require here..

[Rikafip]

In legal terms, yes burden of proof is on the accuser.

The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute

Source: Wikipedia: Burden of proof (law)

On Bitcointalk,

I don't think so is the case always, some people with higher powers on DT tend to ignore this.

While burden of proof should be on the accuser, this is not a criminal court where you have to prove beyond  reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. We are not talking about life or death situations here so threshold is usually lower.

There will allways be possibility of abuse  by some  DT members, but often other DT members will jump in and counter negative feedback.

[LoyceV]

I'll share my 2 sats here: It depends

Anyone has the freedom to accuse anyone. It's up to others whether or not they value their opinion.
See this topic for example: I made an accusation of which I had seen conclusive proof, but I didn't share it for privacy reasons. Many people tagged the account.
I had the proof verified by 2 other users, but still, most of the users who tagged the account didn't get to see it.

However, if a random newbie would make the same accusation, he would need evidence. In the above case the random newbie gave me the evidence, after which I could testify it's legit. People who trust my judgement could therefore trust the claim from the Newbie without seeing the evidence by themselves.

[The-One-Above-All]

I'll share my 2 sats here: It depends

Anyone has the freedom to accuse anyone. It's up to others whether or not they value their opinion.
See this topic for example: I made an accusation of which I had seen conclusive proof, but I didn't share it for privacy reasons. Many people tagged the account.
I had the proof verified by 2 other users, but still, most of the users who tagged the account didn't get to see it.

However, if a random newbie would make the same accusation, he would need evidence. In the above case the random newbie gave me the evidence, after which I could testify it's legit. People who trust my judgement could therefore trust the claim from the Newbie without seeing the evidence by themselves.

Putting faith in anonymous 3rd parties here is still a dangerous precedent to set.

Where at all possible, and all but in the very most unusual of circumstances, The independently verifiable evidence should really be viewed before guilt is assumed and acted upon.

Your word is NOT indisputable, independently verifiable evidence. A scam could be conducted in this manner. It leaves the board at risk.

I would say, of course the accuser needs to present evidence that is independently verifiable by those assessing the matter in order to support or oppose.

In a case like the one you point to then when it involves huge amounts of bitcoins and huge risk, if there is No other way (ie the person forbade you to reveal the evidence in public to prevent his own safety being compromised or whatever) then I guess you have no other choice in the matter. This is unusual and not generally sufficient to garner support from others. You want to accuse generally you must present indisputable, proof of guilt where there is NO other reasonable/possible explanation.

[LoyceV]

Putting faith in anonymous 3rd parties here is still a dangerous precedent to set.

Agreed! That's why I asked Vod and Lutpin to verify the evidence, and vouch for it's authenticity.
So in this case, if you trust the judgement of Vod, Lutpin and me, you can assume the evidence is real. Apart from that, and back to a more generic case: when I myself am convinced someone is guilty, I can leave them negative feedback. I don't need to present evidence for that, although I'll do it whenever possible.
On Mobile on the other hand I'm usually too lazy to create a reference link, but the fact that all 6 users with a Scammer tag got nuked is good enough for me.

[The-One-Above-All]

Putting faith in anonymous 3rd parties here is still a dangerous precedent to set.

Agreed! That's why I asked Vod and Lutpin to verify the evidence, and vouch for it's authenticity.
So in this case, if you trust the judgement of Vod, Lutpin and me, you can assume the evidence is real. Apart from that, and back to a more generic case: when I myself am convinced someone is guilty, I can leave them negative feedback. I don't need to present evidence for that, although I'll do it whenever possible.
On Mobile on the other hand I'm usually too lazy to create a reference link, but the fact that all 6 users with a Scammer tag got nuked is good enough for me.

vod, lutpin are anonymous 3rd parties too we must remember. So this is only for the rarest of cases really. I don't think generally people should be told, x is untrustworthy and a scammer because of Well we can not SHOW you why but just believe us.

I don't understand why you can leave negative without presenting evidence to corroborate your allegation they are a scammer or untrustworthy? although now negative trust is for anything generally by most DT standards then I guess you are correct.

How would you prove it? without supplying any evidence? or are you saying you need not prove it to yourself?? again I am sure the trust system is not supposed to operate without some burden of proof else the value is greatly reduced. May as well not even give a reason if you will not support the reason with evidence. There should really be observable instances to corroborate the allegations in most cases.

I don't think you would lie about something so serious as that matter , but really it should be for rare cases. I would hate to see this become a standard way of operating. Where a few group together to say we say they are scammers but will not give evidence you just have to trust us on that.

I don't disagree with what you have done in that matter, I mean it could be certainly the best way you have to prevent others being scammed if the guy will not permit you to give the proof in public. Which i guess is totally understandable in this specific case. 

[dragonvslinux]

I'll share my 2 sats here: It depends

Anyone has the freedom to accuse anyone. It's up to others whether or not they value their opinion.
See this topic for example: I made an accusation of which I had seen conclusive proof, but I didn't share it for privacy reasons. Many people tagged the account.
I had the proof verified by 2 other users, but still, most of the users who tagged the account didn't get to see it.

Personally I don't find this example to be entirely relevant to the OP title "Guilty until proven innocent" or "Is the burden on the accuser?" discussion. In this case, you had evidence (that you had proved to others), therefore you didn't refuse to present evidence either, only to share it publicly. It's very different from the concept of someone being guilty until proven innocent, as you had proved their guilt to others, therefore the accused would be required to prove their innocence.

If you had expected the user to prove their innocence, without proving their guilt, then this would be a completely different story. I think everyone should be very careful to trust other people's evidence, without being able to verify it themselves. If you are in a position to verify evidence then trust it, but otherwise, you shouldn't be tagging based on trusting someone's judgement. In this case. as someone who trusts your judgement, I would trust your accusation based on the verification from other members. But I'd strongly disagree with leaving negative trust myself based on the belief that someone is guilty, as opposed to being someone who has verified their guilt, and therefore should probably be tagging the user.

Apologies for over-italicizing, as well as repetition, but I'm trying to convey the message of Don't trust, verify.

[Dabs]

I am aware of only a few instances where you are "guilty until proven innocent" and that is with self-defense, where you claim you did something like attack someone else, because you were defending your life.

You may have actually committed the act for which you are being charged, but you have some mitigating reason or circumstances that excuse your actions. When defending yourself against a criminal charge in this situation, the burden will be on you to prove why your actions should be excused. You will not be able to sit and wait for the prosecutor to prove their case, you will have to provide evidence of your defense.

This is a common defense when someone is charged with causing some form of physical violence (assault, battery, etc). The defendant flips the story, and demonstrates that rather than being the aggressor, he or she was actually the victim and was acting to protect themselves from harm.

The reason is because you are proposing an "Affirmative Defense". You are in essence saying "I killed the person you are accusing me of killing, but I was justified in my actions and here is why." You have committed homicide. The burden of proof is on the defender to prove that it was a justifiable homicide. You are guilty until proven justified; you are not innocent from the taking another person's life.

[The-One-Above-All]

I am aware of only a few instances where you are "guilty until proven innocent" and that is with self-defense, where you claim you did something like attack someone else, because you were defending your life.

You may have actually committed the act for which you are being charged, but you have some mitigating reason or circumstances that excuse your actions. When defending yourself against a criminal charge in this situation, the burden will be on you to prove why your actions should be excused. You will not be able to sit and wait for the prosecutor to prove their case, you will have to provide evidence of your defense.

This is a common defense when someone is charged with causing some form of physical violence (assault, battery, etc). The defendant flips the story, and demonstrates that rather than being the aggressor, he or she was actually the victim and was acting to protect themselves from harm.

The reason is because you are proposing an "Affirmative Defense". You are in essence saying "I killed the person you are accusing me of killing, but I was justified in my actions and here is why." You have committed homicide. The burden of proof is on the defender to prove that it was a justifiable homicide. You are guilty until proven justified; you are not innocent from the taking another person's life.

This was an interesting post. I was trying to think of any such examples. If I had more merits I would give some for that. A source should do if possible they have 100's per month. Yes, that is an interesting example indeed. Self defense is very applicable on this forum actually.

[Dabs]

This is the interwebs / forumz, my example is particular to physical violence done on your person, specifically as it pertains to self-defense using a weapon such as a blade or a firearm. The Americans have a 2nd amendment in their constitution so this is a hotly debated topic, and even though I am not in that country or fall under their laws, I think it makes sense everywhere else in the world.

How you apply it depends on how your government sees the items or the case. In most instances, it is best to stop the attack and just disappear quietly. You probably killed a criminal who does drugs or someone crazy, and spending the next several months in court rooms is going to cost you time and money. Let the celebrities with 5 star lawyers do the national televised cases work for you.

I carry all the time, everywhere, but tell no one. Haven't been clocked in over 10 years unless the other guy was most likely a carrier too, and I don't count that. I've been able to bring a firearm into most banks, inside court rooms, and inside government official offices, while I was dressed as a civilian. I haven't tried going through airport security. (I can do it if I'm dressed as a soldier, but that's cheating eh?)

Talking badly about someone most likely falls under online libel.

[OffspringEverything]

What kind of accusation are you talking about, OP?  Is it from a DT member, is it even from someone on this forum?  

Does this matter? Would your stance change if the person accusing is on DT?

Well it would help to know what issue you're complaining about because each case is unique and without more details we likely can't be conclusive in answering your question. You might have a valid case or not. For Instance, The-Devil seems to be proclaiming his innocence and that he's been abused and hard done by: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215876.0

But given the evidence presented only he seems to think he's done nothing wrong, but obviously others disagree.

No Specific issue. I am conducting research, looking at everything that each person writes, and try to predict what each person likes, dislikes, and strokes emonitions. I use lingustics to filter and combine all duplicate people to have the best prediction. I noticed a lot of blind assumptions of guilt, so thats why I asked.

[Vaculin]

If someone accuse you without presenting an evidence, that's his choice, he can tag anyone based on his opinion, but most probably if he is in the DT position, he will be distrusted because he doesn't behave based at the right way.

The simple rule is, when you accuse someone, you need to prove by providing an evidence so the community would know that the accusation is correct and at the same time, it would warn the community for what kind of person is using the account.