Tuesday, April 23, 2013
This kind of stuff happens all the time, and not just on Facebook. Facebook pretty much condones vigilantism. We've seen many photos, comments, etc, and flagged them, and we get a note back from Facebook that it wasn't removed because it doesn't violate their Terms of Service, which is a crock!
We’ve seen it a lot lately. Posts identifying “guilty” individuals imploring others to identify, condemn, even exact revenge, on the people identified.
It’s called Trial by Facebook, or Trial by Social Media and it involves the posting of content on Facebook or other social media that identifies and condemns individuals allegedly guilty of a crime and implores others to share the content, thus exposing the accused to an angry public.
Such content goes further than to simply lay out the facts of an incident. Trial by Social Media/Facebook content condemns and judges, often unfairly or without proof. And it is for that reason it is potentially dangerous and unjust. Such posts play judge, jury and executioner.
Trial by Facebook content will often explicitly condone vigilante justice, but even if it does not then it will always – to some extent – encourage it implicitly.
Resisting this type of behaviour can often be difficult. Often the people identified in the photos could arguably deserve being shamed in public arena, and users may feel the victims of crimes deserve to see it happen.
Often Trial by Facebook/Social Media posts result from knee-jerk and impassioned reactions where we become the unwitting victims of our own emotions, only seeing what makes up feel better in the short term rather than looking at the big picture.
However we live in a world with legal justice systems, and whether you agree or disagree with your legal system or with a specific sentence handed out, there is still never a place in any civilised world for vigilante justice. And vigilante justice is exactly what Trial by Facebook promotes and encourages.
And if that isn’t reason enough to stop you posting Trial by Social Media content, then here is a whole bunch of other reasons.
Inaccurate Content? Trial by Social media posts can often accumulate thousands, even hundreds of thousands of shares. And sadly the vast majority of people who share this type of content will do so without any verification or proof that it is accurate.
Delbert Tibbs was sentenced to death for murder and rape in 1974, based on the testimony of the rape victim Cynthia Nadeau. Tibbs was convicted on this evidence, despite the fact that the description the police were given by Cynthia did not match him. After two years on death row, he was freed by the Florida Supreme Court.
Find out more, see the other films and follow our journey at www.oneforten.com.
NM - Ex-Portales cop (Victor Castillo) gets 25 years for maintaining a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old
Former Portales school resource officer Victor Castillo, 46, was sentenced Monday to 25 years in prison after pleading guilty to maintaining a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old Portales High School student, the Portales News-Tribune reported.
Castillo pleaded guilty in March to 17 of 34 charges, including sexual exploitation of a minor, criminal sexual contact of a minor, criminal sexual penetration of a minor and tampering with evidence, the News-Tribune said.
District Attorney Matt Chandler told state District Judge Donna Mowrer that State Police launched an investigation of Castillo after learning of a party at Castillo’s home northwest of Clovis, which involved sexual activity of minors, the paper reported.
Castillo’s cell phone was confiscated and sent to a forensic lab in Albuquerque where 10,000 deleted photos and three videos were recovered from the phone, including more than a dozen sexually explicit pictures, Chandler told the judge.
Chandler said the victim admitted to police that she had sent Castillo sexually explicit photos and videos, according to the News-Tribune.
By KIRSTY TOPPING
A woman launched a campaign of harassment against a former policeman after finding out he had been convicted of possessing indecent images containing children, a court has heard.
Lana Robertson, 37, was found guilty at Perth Sheriff Court of making abusive remarks to [name withheld] in August and October 2011.
Mr [name withheld] was jailed in 2009 after being found with 14 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children and 43 indecent videos depicting children as young as three engaged in sexual acts with adults and animals.
He was sentenced to one year in prison, and put on licence for a further two. He was also placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years.
Robertson, formerly of Rannoch Road, denied the charges and claimed the accusations had been fabricated to “get her into trouble”.
The court heard how she had shouted “paedo” and “paedophile” at Mr [name withheld].
Mr [name withheld] and his partner of 14 years, [partner name withheld], told how the abuse had left them “upset” and “fearful”.
Sheriff Lindsay Foulis was told how, on August 23 2011, Robertson screamed abuse at Mr [name withheld] as he and Ms [partner name withheld] drove along with their car windows open.
Mr [name withheld] said: “All I could make out was ‘schools’ and ‘paedophiles’. I was distressed by it.”
On another occasion on October 9 the same year, Mr [name withheld] and Ms [partner name withheld] had returned to their home when Robertson passed by in the passenger seat of a red car, leaned across the driver and yelled “paedo”.
Mr [name withheld] claimed to have a log of 140 other incidents where Robertson had targeted them.
Ms [partner name withheld] said the abuse had prevented the couple from moving on after Mr [name withheld] was released from prison.
Sobbing in the witness box, the 59-year-old said: “Our home’s not our home. We can’t relax there, we are continually watching who walks down the street.”
Asked by Robertson’s defence agent, John McLaughlin, if the incidents had been fabricated, she said: “I wouldn’t go to these lengths just to get someone into trouble.”
Robertson denied either incident had occurred and accused Ms [partner name withheld] of putting on an act for the court.
She said that she had learned of Mr [name withheld]'s conviction from a neighbour and while she thought it was “disgusting” she had no issue with him living nearby.
However, she had an argument with him.
Sheriff Foulis determined that it was “beyond reasonable doubt that (Robertson) shouted abuse at Mr [name withheld].”
Sentence was deferred for 12 months for Robertson to be of good behaviour.