[user104658]

To be fair, the more I think about this, I am starting to find the hashtagging / twitter campaigning sort of worrying? It's not that I don't believe her, it's not that I don't think these guys are scumbags, but I do think it's part of a dangerous precedent. What will be the point of the justice system AT ALL if, when the verdict isn't agreed with, social media en-masse can simply carry out a new "trial", minus all of the evidence of an actual trial, and effectively "create a new result"? Isn't it all a bit dystopian? These guys may well be guilty, but how long until going to trial at all is as good as being found guilty of any crime, thanks to "viral justice"? How long before someone who is actually innocent, and whose case is thrown out of court on solid evidence, is nonetheless a victim of vigilante re-trial where that evidence isn't available or isn't widely seen?

I dunno. It just isn't sitting well. Our justice system isn't perfect but it's something that's been refined over centuries to try to get the right result at least MOST of the time... and for that system to go out the window in favour of Facebook and Twitter - the most emotionally unstable and dim-witted platforms in existence - presents a huge problem.