It is rare that an event can unite virtually everyone — across social, economic and political divides — in shared moral outrage. But that was exactly what emerged from the savage and sociopathic torture and death of the beloved, committed by a group of teenagers in Santa Catarina.
As I watched it emerge first in Brazil and then internationally, it seemed that there might be at least one positive outcome to this horror. It was inspiring to feel and express noble moral indignation in defense of a dog they didn’t even know.
The universal demand for punishment for Orelha’s killers has put pressure on authorities to treat this case with the seriousness it deserves. And he made sure they knew their actions would be intensely scrutinized by the public. All of this is undeniably positive.
Animals in general, and dogs in particular, have long held a central place in my family’s life. My late husband, , and I spent years rescuing stray dogs. When we had more than 20 at home, we created a shelter in Maricá. I investigated the unspeakable savagery of factory farms around the world, which led me to become vegan. I say this to emphasize that I want nothing less than severe punishment for the perpetrators.
However, while I found the initial public fury encouraging, collective behavior on the internet began to take a dark and dangerous turn. Many decided that the only way to apply justice would be through virtual lynching and vigilante punishments, completely outside the legal system.
And all of this predictably produced its own extreme injustice: a probably innocent teenager was found guilty and severely punished for a crime in which he had no involvement.
Santa Catarina police have not officially released the names of any suspects — in part because the investigation has not yet been completed, but also because at least some, if not all, of them were minors. But the internet court does not operate under such restrictions.
Several accounts on social networks, often anonymous, began publishing names and photos of four teenagers who declared them guilty. Soon after, home addresses were circulating, followed by detailed information about his parents.
With guilt quickly determined for all four, the obvious and stated intent of these disclosures was to proceed with punishment. The four were forced to hide, in obvious physical danger. And the destruction of their reputations was already underway, possibly permanently.
A court ruled that these posts were illegal and should be removed from the platforms. But the damage was already done.
But now one of the four convicted boys does not appear in any of the extensive footage analyzed of the incident. Furthermore, they claim that the young man’s parents provided definitive evidence that he was not present at the scene.
Much of this online activism likely had good intentions. Many understand that rich, white teenagers would be unlikely to be significantly punished by the Brazilian justice system, thus requiring extrajudicial weapons to ensure that they suffer.
However, digital mob trials rarely produce justice. Much more often, they produce the opposite. Guilty verdicts and sentencing must be determined by a judicial process that — unlike internet courts — operates with vital evidentiary requirements and safeguards to protect the innocent.
Brazil’s justice system often produces its own errors and serious injustices. But humanity has not yet invented any method for determining guilt and innocence that comes close—in terms of fairness and accuracy—to due process and the rules of evidence that govern the courts.
There is nothing worse that a State can do than punish an innocent person. Sir William Blackstone, an 18th-century British jurist, explained this imperative: “It is better that ten guilty people escape than that one innocent suffer.”
This principle has become, by definition, the cornerstone of any fair and legitimate system of justice. And it is a principle typically absent in internet lynchings, driven, above all, by bloodlust and the desire for “scalps”.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
