There is a difference in standard of proof between what's required for a guilty verdict in a courtroom and what's required in order for someone to step down/ be fired from a position or being discussed in a negative light in an article in the press.
So it's not either "enough for a guilty verdict in a court room" or "basically a witch hunt", but it can be in between the two.
People step down due to an outcry by the public all the time. Politicians quit when a scandal breaks or CEOs lose their job for stuff that may be far below the threshold of what holds up in a court room. This doesn't mean that it is a witch hunt, but it is part of the normal democratic process. Can this be unfair? Yes, absolutely. Is it always unfair? No, absolutely not.
Another example might be all the steps that are taken before a defendant in a court of law can be sentenced. They might be arrested for example or even stay in jail until the case starts, which is a severe limitation of their freedom, all before having been sentenced by a court. Is this undemocratic? No, it's actually the standard process. Is it possible that the accused will be acquitted and so had their freedom curtailed unnecessarily while being innocent? Yes, absolutely. In fact, the presumption of innocence in a way implies that this is the default situation.
Obviously the situation discussed in this article is again different from that and I'm not trying to argue that it is the same as either of these examples, I'm merely pointing this out as a counter-argument to those who keep bringing up evidentiary standards used in court rooms.
As for the argument that there was no evidence at all: Witness statements _are_ evidence. They are also accepted as a valid type of evidence in a court of law.
Is it true that if you lower the evidentiary standard for taking action, it is more likely that wrong or unfair decisions are made? It seems hard to deny. Does this mean that it is illegitimate to ask for consequences that have serious repercussions for the careers of accused people before they are convicted in a court of law? Not necessarily.
So it's not either "enough for a guilty verdict in a court room" or "basically a witch hunt", but it can be in between the two.
People step down due to an outcry by the public all the time. Politicians quit when a scandal breaks or CEOs lose their job for stuff that may be far below the threshold of what holds up in a court room. This doesn't mean that it is a witch hunt, but it is part of the normal democratic process. Can this be unfair? Yes, absolutely. Is it always unfair? No, absolutely not.
Another example might be all the steps that are taken before a defendant in a court of law can be sentenced. They might be arrested for example or even stay in jail until the case starts, which is a severe limitation of their freedom, all before having been sentenced by a court. Is this undemocratic? No, it's actually the standard process. Is it possible that the accused will be acquitted and so had their freedom curtailed unnecessarily while being innocent? Yes, absolutely. In fact, the presumption of innocence in a way implies that this is the default situation.
Obviously the situation discussed in this article is again different from that and I'm not trying to argue that it is the same as either of these examples, I'm merely pointing this out as a counter-argument to those who keep bringing up evidentiary standards used in court rooms.
As for the argument that there was no evidence at all: Witness statements _are_ evidence. They are also accepted as a valid type of evidence in a court of law.
Is it true that if you lower the evidentiary standard for taking action, it is more likely that wrong or unfair decisions are made? It seems hard to deny. Does this mean that it is illegitimate to ask for consequences that have serious repercussions for the careers of accused people before they are convicted in a court of law? Not necessarily.
