This is a question for the people at the Times Up (@timesupnow). We would like to start off by saying that this is a real question that we would like answered although we understand that as a smaller publication we probably will not receive an answer.
We would like a written explanation (that we will publish in its entirety) as to why you feel it is ok to continue campaigns like the ones against artists like R. Kelly, Nelly, and Chris Brown.
The sixth amendment to our constitution says
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;”
Although the first amendment of the same constitution gives you the right to free speech we are just wondering how forcing companies to take actions on an artist who has not been prosecuted by the courts is fair to the artist or his fans. I do understand that it is also not fair to the victims for the artists to be able to continue to live their lives after committing a crime but in this country, there is not a proof of the crime which technically means that we should hold judgment until it has been proven that they are criminals.
Secondly, for those that have been found guilty and have served there time via probation or jail time, etc.. do they not have the right to reenter the workforce?
Is it your stance that people do not deserve second chances and even more important is it your stance that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent because according to the Cornell Law School “One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.”