Spencer might be amazed at the developments in our society which trend to keep people in ignorance. I’m not just talking about the rampant Bulverism (things like Homophobia or Islamophobia assume a psychological cause rather than principaled reasons) but a politically harnessed stance that rejects not just what investigations may have been made but the evidences which may be given at all.
I’ve summed this up by saying that for some people, with respect to those they favor, that anything less than a conviction for crimes cannot be evidence of wrongdoing. Also that these same persons seem to normally be perfectly willing to accept any serious charge made vs the not-favored.
Trying to reason with such individuals that their stance on the first point in fact would eliminate all criminal trials -— if evidence is not evidence without a conviction based on it then nothing that is properly evidence can be presented before conviction ... and if I chose to go on I might try to show how that view plays into a presupposition that all criminal proceedings, at least against the favored, are injustices imposed because of their race or affiliations (a form of Bulverism, someone only would convict because they oppose the accused unjustly) -— has been like bouncing balls off of Abrams tanks ... fun but pointless as no damage is ever done.
In frustration I’ve finally shifted to challenge that who are they to even care about wrongdoing at all ... and sadly in every instance this seems to have been interpreted as a defense of someone they are griping about rather than a full frontal attack on their ethics.
You are correct about today’s sad state - well stated.