
The death of due process (2016) - Fnoord
https://blog.cr.yp.to/20160607-dueprocess.html
======
eesmith
> If the accusation is true then the perpetrator should go to jail. If the
> accusation is false then the source of this false accusation should pay for
> this slander.

There's a large difference between "the accusation cannot be proven beyond
reasonable doubt" and "false".

I can also accuse someone after the statute of limitations has expired, in
which case the accusation may be true while the perpetrator should not go to
jail.

Even when Nixon was alive, I could say that Nixon directed criminal
activities, even though he shouldn't be jailed because he was pardoned.

> When I say "day in court", what I really mean is due process.

Due process is a legal term. Is it used for ethical principles beyond the law?
The linked-to law review article only concerns the legal understanding.

> lynch mob

Ahh, now we get to the point. The author doesn't like it when people protest
and incite for social change that the author disagrees with.

(Note: we are not talking about actual lynch mobs here. That's an illegal,
extra-judicial murder.)

The problem with that is that "lynch mob" in this way is _also_ an accusation.
Why should I be slandered as a member of a lynch mob, without a neutral judge
to first verify that I am indeed a member of a lynch mob?

What is the definition of "lynch mob" which would be used for due process?

