AROUND THE LEAGUE - 25-26

[Todd Bersnoozi]

How does anyone actually believe that a woman enjoys that type of treatment?

It's nice to get a female perspective. At first, I thought the doods were guilty for sure and a bit surprised how it all played out. At the end of the day, I trust the judge's verdict as it was from a lady as well.

[Hockey Widow]

It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

However, when it comes to this sort of thing, the court of public opinion is too often used as a platform to influence outcome.....and if not the legal result than at least the social fallout for the accused in the even that they are acquitted.

Of course it should be public. They were criminally charged. They have no right to privacy. The victim, or accuser does have the right to privacy. But it is an interesting point when you look at the Epstein fiasco. One of the main reasons I am opposed to the releasing of documents that may name names is that in the absence of those men being criminally charged they do have the right to privacy. I see no value in "shaming" them or outing them if they are never to be charged.

If you decide to withhold publication of accused in a criminal trial of this sort because the fall out if they are found not guilty is horrendous, then why not take that stand on all criminal cases? And the risk of that then becomes having trials in secret. The potential for abuse in that becomes really scary to think about. Our system isn't perfect. but its better than allowing the "state" to things in the dark.

[Meds]

It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

I disagree with respect to the privacy and standards of conduct applying equally between hockey stars and the remainder of the plebes. When one gets to a point where they hold positions of prominence in society - whether it’s a teacher, a politician, a magistrate or an entertainer - there is a certain exemplary expectation in a social sense. If you represent an institution - whether it’s a hockey club, national team or a league, you represent the ethics and values of that institution through your conduct and utterances.

They make the bucks; they get the fandom; they get the celebrity; it’s part of the social contract.

None of them, other than Formenton, had played in the NHL at the time of this incident.

Now these guys have been acquitted by the civil and criminal courts.....but this will haunt their professional careers, as well as their social lives, forever.

[Meds]

It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

However, when it comes to this sort of thing, the court of public opinion is too often used as a platform to influence outcome.....and if not the legal result than at least the social fallout for the accused in the even that they are acquitted.

Of course it should be public. They were criminally charged. They have no right to privacy. The victim, or accuser does have the right to privacy. But it is an interesting point when you look at the Epstein fiasco. One of the main reasons I am opposed to the releasing of documents that may name names is that in the absence of those men being criminally charged they do have the right to privacy. I see no value in "shaming" them or outing them if they are never to be charged.

If you decide to withhold publication of accused in a criminal trial of this sort because the fall out if they are found not guilty is horrendous, then why not take that stand on all criminal cases? And the risk of that then becomes having trials in secret. The potential for abuse in that becomes really scary to think about. Our system isn't perfect. but its better than allowing the "state" to things in the dark.

I do take that stand on all criminal cases.

Too many lives have been destroyed because of charges and accusations that were false. 30 years ago this was not such a problem because the only way the stories got out to the public was through actual journalism where the delivery of the reporters was fairly objective and stuck to the facts. Now it's EVERYWHERE, and there's next to no vetting of facts when it comes to the click bait journalists, it's all opinion pieces. However, because of the social outcry the legal system is influenced at some times, and certainly the corporate sector is influenced.

If found guilty by virtue of evidence, then publish it. We need to do away with the schadenfreude-based hate.

[Hockey Widow]

It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

However, when it comes to this sort of thing, the court of public opinion is too often used as a platform to influence outcome.....and if not the legal result than at least the social fallout for the accused in the even that they are acquitted.

Of course it should be public. They were criminally charged. They have no right to privacy. The victim, or accuser does have the right to privacy. But it is an interesting point when you look at the Epstein fiasco. One of the main reasons I am opposed to the releasing of documents that may name names is that in the absence of those men being criminally charged they do have the right to privacy. I see no value in "shaming" them or outing them if they are never to be charged.

If you decide to withhold publication of accused in a criminal trial of this sort because the fall out if they are found not guilty is horrendous, then why not take that stand on all criminal cases? And the risk of that then becomes having trials in secret. The potential for abuse in that becomes really scary to think about. Our system isn't perfect. but its better than allowing the "state" to things in the dark.

I do take that stand on all criminal cases.

Too many lives have been destroyed because of charges and accusations that were false. 30 years ago this was not such a problem because the only way the stories got out to the public was through actual journalism where the delivery of the reporters was fairly objective and stuck to the facts. Now it's EVERYWHERE, and there's next to no vetting of facts when it comes to the click bait journalists, it's all opinion pieces. However, because of the social outcry the legal system is influenced at some times, and certainly the corporate sector is influenced.

If found guilty by virtue of evidence, then publish it. We need to do away with the schadenfreude-based hate.

Our system has always been one of a public trial. Secret trials lead to a lot more abuse. You are right. When someone stands accused it can ruin their life. But trials done in the dark scare me.

[Meds]

It is a horrible look because it went public. There are more shocking things happen in the private lives of of every day folk who are not in the limelight of professional entertainment. What people do in their private lives away from their job is nobody's business unless it actually is illegal behaviour. In this case it apparently was not. None of them should have been identified, this trial should have been behind closed doors, and unless the findings of court were that the accused were guilty, they should have been permitted to return to their lives without this hanging over their heads.

However, when it comes to this sort of thing, the court of public opinion is too often used as a platform to influence outcome.....and if not the legal result than at least the social fallout for the accused in the even that they are acquitted.

Of course it should be public. They were criminally charged. They have no right to privacy. The victim, or accuser does have the right to privacy. But it is an interesting point when you look at the Epstein fiasco. One of the main reasons I am opposed to the releasing of documents that may name names is that in the absence of those men being criminally charged they do have the right to privacy. I see no value in "shaming" them or outing them if they are never to be charged.

If you decide to withhold publication of accused in a criminal trial of this sort because the fall out if they are found not guilty is horrendous, then why not take that stand on all criminal cases? And the risk of that then becomes having trials in secret. The potential for abuse in that becomes really scary to think about. Our system isn't perfect. but its better than allowing the "state" to things in the dark.

I do take that stand on all criminal cases.

Too many lives have been destroyed because of charges and accusations that were false. 30 years ago this was not such a problem because the only way the stories got out to the public was through actual journalism where the delivery of the reporters was fairly objective and stuck to the facts. Now it's EVERYWHERE, and there's next to no vetting of facts when it comes to the click bait journalists, it's all opinion pieces. However, because of the social outcry the legal system is influenced at some times, and certainly the corporate sector is influenced.

If found guilty by virtue of evidence, then publish it. We need to do away with the schadenfreude-based hate.

Our system has always been one of a public trial. Secret trials lead to a lot more abuse. You are right. When someone stands accused it can ruin their life. But trials done in the dark scare me.

I hear you, and don't disagree with that perspective either. The advent of social media is a hurdle that a fair and just society has to strive to overcome.

[Hockey Widow]

In more ways than one!