TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 1 of 18 1234561116 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 448

Thread: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

  1. #1
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die

    Guilty Until Proven Innocent

    In the background of the #metoo movement and the outing of all these sex offenders, there are a core of people (myself included) that still believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

    Here is a case that I find absolutely ridiculous:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rial-collapses

    TLDR: Man accused of 12 counts of rape and sexual assault found innocent after the police finally viewed the text messages he said they should view, 2 years after the fact.

    Of course in the eyes of idiots like our own SD, 12 counts would be enough to paint this guy as guilty.

    I'm wondering if this woman will face trial. She should, imho.

  2. #2
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    You're the only idiot here, pal.

  3. #3
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    How are you linking the #metoo movement to this one case reported in the Guardian?
    Is there information contained in this case which somehow discredits the scores of people reporting their sexual assault experiences?

    Is the central message here that women should shut up about their assaults unless they have enough evidence to prosecute?

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    I'd love to debate why having a "innocent before being proven guilty" stance on all crimes should always be the case, especially with the "metoo" movement, but after the thread got hijacked and taken in a more extreme direction toward the victims, it was impossible to have a valid debate after that. So that's left me a bit jaded. I love a good debate, so that was very annoying. You can't have a valid debate once emotions get involved. People just start exploding with anger and there is no way to have a logical debate from then on.

    All I'll say is that everyone deserves the right to be viewed as innocent before being proven otherwise. I believe in that very strongly. The problem is that the majority of people get into a mob / witch hunt mentality whenever a murderer is accused, person accused of rape etc etc. Often there isn't even a shred of evidence, being hearsay or just the words of one individual which are often impossible to prove one way or the other, but that does not matter to the mob of angry people who yell "OFF WITH THIS HEAD". Half the time those accused are later proven to have been innocent, but the damage is already done. Either the persons life is COMPLETELY ruined and is never the same afterward, or the person commits suicide, or like in the above example, the police themselves are guilty of not considering a person innocent and put them in jail for x amount of years before the truth was revealed. Where is the justice in that?

    That is why I feel so strongly on this.

    The other problem you get is that some people believe that the right of the victim (whether or not they actually were or not) is more important than that of the accused. Well if you go down that road then everyone is guilty before being proven otherwise. So no thanks.

  5. #5
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    How are you linking the #metoo movement to this one case reported in the Guardian?
    Is there information contained in this case which somehow discredits the scores of people reporting their sexual assault experiences?

    Is the central message here that women should shut up about their assaults unless they have enough evidence to prosecute?
    I think his point is: "let's hold off on chastising until after they are convicted." The case show's that the person was blamed by 12 women, and in the end, it turned out it was not true. All the celebs are already getting so much crap. Harvey Weinstein's career is ruined for example. What if it turns out he is actually innocent, like in the article linked?

    (that is highly unlikely, but illustrating the point).

  6. #6
    Mistaken for a man
    Registered: Jun 2000
    Location: Helsinki, Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    How are you linking the #metoo movement to this one case reported in the Guardian?
    I'd like to ask the same. Grabbing tits or jerking off in front of others is not a crime, it's just really, really bad and idiotic behaviour. If you do it enough, it won't stay a secret forever, and so your social stupidity returns to bite you in the ass in the form of social punishment.

  7. #7
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Yakoob View Post
    The case show's that the person was blamed by 12 women...
    Heheheh. 12 counts. One complainant. SubJeff is trying to equate distinct concepts, and you just fell for one of his deceptions. Icemann can complain about emotional responses, but the fact is this thread was started with SubJeff's usual brazenly dishonest style (conflating a dozen charges with a dozen witnesses, nevermind the underlying conflation of personal and business decisions with criminal justice principles).

    EDIT: I distrust the motivation of anybody who's deeply concerned about Weinstein getting blacklisted from his career without a criminal conviction but don't express the slightest concern about the now-corroborated fact that several of his victims were blacklisted from their careers on his behalf, obviously also without any criminal conviction. Insofar as people are getting unjustly blacklisted, the shoe is very much on the accusers' feet. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.

    EDIT 2: I think there are very good conversations to be had (albeit not with SubJeff) about how industry power can be oppressive in ways normally associated with government power. But defending Weinstein et al is IMO not the place to do it.
    Last edited by Pyrian; 16th Dec 2017 at 03:02.

  8. #8
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Innocent before proven guilty is a concept for crimes tried in a court. It means that it's up to the prosecution to prove a person's guilt and not up to the person to prove their innocence. It doesn't mean that the person is innocent, it just means that only the person's guilt is determined at court. Obviously, this doesn't apply to life outside of a courtroom. Someone who has been molesting women does not have to be treated as if he was completely innocent, even if what he's doing isn't legally a crime. If 8 unrelated people say your babysitter has mistreated their children, you do not have to hire that babysitter, even if there hasn't been a conviction. If your friend says that someone you know stole from them, you do not have to wait for a court decision to keep an eye on your valuables when that person is visiting.

    So, maybe there's a remote chance that Weinstein is innocent, despite all the evidence to the contrary. But if that's the standard, that means that nobody can be treated as guilty, because courts make mistakes too.

    And yes, false rape accusations do rarely happen, but not "half of the time" as suggested above. And that's for the courts to sort out. But that's not the issue with the case in the Guardian. From what I gather, the case fell apart because police had certain messages from the woman's mobile phone, but didn't hand them over to the prosecution and defence teams until the trial was already close at hand. These messages, where the woman described enjoying sex with the man and having rape fantasies, made the conviction very unlikely to happen and so the prosecution dropped the case.

    Finally, why is it with allegations of sexual assault that the fantasies run wild and people start to imagine hordes of women maliciously trying to ruin mens lives? There is no reason to believe that these kinds of false allegations are any more prevalent than the false allegations of other kinds of crimes.

  9. #9
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    Maybe because women are people. And whatever your general view of people may be, we don't give anyone else the chance to destroy someone's life without checking the facts, solely relying on good faith not to do the wrong thing.

    Conor Oberst was accused of rape ffs. If that doesn't prove it can hit anyone then I don't know what does.

  10. #10
    Mistaken for a man
    Registered: Jun 2000
    Location: Helsinki, Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Finally, why is it with allegations of sexual assault that the fantasies run wild and people start to imagine hordes of women maliciously trying to ruin mens lives?
    Because ALL WOMEN SECRETLY HATE MEN AND ENVY THEIR PENISES

    Edit. And there's no doubt whatsoever in Weinstein's case concerning harrassment, he has admitted it himself.

  11. #11
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    @Kolya Yes, but we don't treat theft the same way. We don't go, "What's the big deal, it's just a purse. And what were you doing walking with a purse at a time like this anyway?" We don't doubt victims of theft in the same way. We don't say, "half of the people accused of stealing are later proven to have been innocent."

    Also, we give people the chance to destroy people's lives when we give people like Weinstein free reign.
    Last edited by Starker; 16th Dec 2017 at 04:54.

  12. #12
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    Maybe because women are people. And whatever your general view of people may be, we don't give anyone else the chance to destroy someone's life without checking the facts, solely relying on good faith not to do the wrong thing.
    Wow, mate, that's some pretty heavy implied misogyny right there. Only women get the chance to ruin people's lives, eh? You can't seriously believe that, do you? Anyway, I'm going to repeat myself: "I distrust the motivation of anybody who's deeply concerned about Weinstein getting blacklisted from his career without a criminal conviction but don't express the slightest concern about the now-corroborated fact that several of his victims were blacklisted from their careers on his behalf, obviously also without any criminal conviction." Why are you all apparently unconcerned with rape victims having their lives ruined in retaliation for rejection and/or speaking out - again without any criminal conviction?

  13. #13
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Wow Pyrian, I never figured you were so dim. What a disgusting strawman attempt.

    I never tried to conflate the 12 charges with 12 women - I said 12 counts and I linked to the article where it's clear it's all from one person.

    My point was SD had stated that if there were enough accusations he didn't think there needed to be proof in court, he was happy that the accused must be guilty. Perhaps he does mean by multiple people and this case wouldn't fit his SD 'rules of guilt' though, so I may be wrong there. Only SD can tell.

    I find it amusing that you think I've tried to trap or deceive anyone. It says much more about how your mind works than mine.


    Vasquez - 'grabbing tits' IS a crime and should be dealt with as such. That's sexual assault.

    faetal - the central message is people ARE falsely accused of sexual crimes and to blanket beleive every accuser is an injustice. I'm not saying police shouldn't investigate but I think it's time for a change in the law; both presumed perp and victim should be anonymous until the trial is over. In the case linked we STILL don't know the name of the woman here, who should have criminal charges brought against her.

    Yakoob is more or less right about the point.

    It's a good thing that women are speaking up about harassment and assault, but it's important to remember that everyone involved and is a human being and establishing guilt before vilification is the just thing to do.

    This week's Moral Maze was interesting and related.
    Last edited by SubJeff; 16th Dec 2017 at 06:54. Reason: Added Moral Maze

  14. #14
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    faetal - the central message is people ARE falsely accused of sexual crimes and to blanket believe every accuser is an injustice. I'm not saying police shouldn't investigate but I think it's time for a change in the law; both presumed perp and victim should be anonymous until the trial is over. In the case linked we STILL don't know the name of the woman here, who should have criminal charges brought against her.

    Yakoob is more or less right about the point.

    It's a good thing that women are speaking up about harassment and assault, but it's important to remember that everyone involved and is a human being and establishing guilt before vilification is the just thing to do.

    This week's Moral Maze was interesting and related.
    I still don't understand what this has to do with the #metoo movement. Who has been improperly charged here?
    How about you tell us how a woman who has been abused by someone in a position of power should act? When they know it is too far after the event to be able to get a case together, because at the time, they didn't feel bold enough to speak out.
    In the case of Weinstein, there have been multiple corroborating statements, and it seems that unless there is literally a giant conspiracy against Weinstein, that everyone kind of knew that if you wanted to succeed in a production he was powerful in, you had to do what he says, or lose your career, probably with an "it'll be your word against mine" clincher. Likewise with Louis CK - multiple corroborating statements and an admission.

    Picking out one news story of a pretty extreme example, without any deeper research into what proportion of assault allegations are found, or strongly suspected to be false is massive intellectual dishonesty. You have so little faith in your own argument, that you are resorting to the parlour trick of mentioning A in the same space as B and hoping that people will mistakenly link them and it will lend undue weight to your trying to discredit A.

    Form a cogent argument, which doesn't resort to such tricks - else it just seems that you have a general annoyance about what is happening and are trying to build an argument which supports your perspective, instead of looking at the facts overall and then forming a conclusion.

    Men in positions of power who think they can get away with coercing women into bypassing their natural desires to give them sexual favours, are now going to be exercising a little more caution since the #metoo movement. I'd call that a good thing. You have to look at the balance - some people have their lives ruined by false accusations, sure. Some people have their lives ruined by being sexually assaulted or coerced into sex acts. I think I prefer an environment which results in fewer lives being ruined, and I'd greatly estimate the number of legitimate assaults to outweigh the number of false accusations. In fact, it seems that the rate may be as low as 2%. Personally, I hope men in positions of power (or men in general really) start thinking long and hard about whether the women they are interested in are really interested back and learn to just back the fuck off rather than figure out if there's a way to circumvent consent (which includes using career pressure).

  15. #15
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    The link to the #metoo movement was SD, in another thread, saying that if X number of women accused someone that was enough for him and forget due process, and the increased number of people coming forwards to report historical abuse has undoubtable increased. Did you miss this? "More than 40 people came forward as a result of the televised appeal but the vast majority of the claims have been dismissed, including several made by fantasists."

    In SDs eyes this is an open and shut case. 40 people? GUILTY

    I'm not commenting on Weinstein et al. This has nothing do to with men in power and everything to do with reiterating that there ARE enough false accusations that we should be very cautious.

    And it's not one news story. I suggest you listen to that Moral Maze and perhaps do some background research on the matter yourself. I'm aware that the majority of accusations are NOT found to be false.

    I'm talking about the ones that are.

    This MoJ report 2012 has a figure of 12% of rape reports being false. 36/299 reported cases from a select set. There is no real definition of 'false' but even so, that's potentially at least 1 in 10 cases just serving no other purpose than wrecking someone's life.

    If that doesn't concern you then we'll have to agree to disagree.

  16. #16
    Mistaken for a man
    Registered: Jun 2000
    Location: Helsinki, Finland
    So you're saying everyone discussing this matter in the internet shouldn't believe any case of harrassment or rape is true, until it's waterproofly proven to be, in case it's false?
    I know that's what you have to do in court, but come on. For every #metoo-sympathiser there still is probably at least the same amount of people who are willing to think ALL accusations are lies, because "that's how dem wimmen are, lyers and whores and out to get men, they clearly was askin' it!", so I'd say that evens out the scales.

  17. #17
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Vasquez View Post
    So you're saying everyone discussing this matter in the internet shouldn't believe any case of harrassment or rape is true, until it's waterproofly proven to be, in case it's false?
    Since when did this become Strawman Forums? FFS

    I'm sure there are a few idiots who believe all accusations are lies but it's pretty obvious they're idiots in the majority of cases because they use the language you've provided.

  18. #18
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    My point was SD had stated that if there were enough accusations he didn't think there needed to be proof in court, he was happy that the accused must be guilty. Perhaps he does mean by multiple people and this case wouldn't fit his SD 'rules of guilt' though, so I may be wrong there. Only SD can tell.
    No, anyone can tell, because my words in that original thread were completely unambiguous:

    ...while allegations of harassment from one person could be malicious and false, allegations from multiple sources reduce that likelihood considerably.

    Given that you continued to disagree with me in that thread based on this very knowledge, it's hard to escape the idea that Pyrian is right to question the honesty of your post here.

    (Not to mention that I didn't even say that someone "must be guilty" if accused by several people, merely that, on the basis of probability, I am happy to treat them as if they did it until such a time as it is evident they did not)

  19. #19
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    The link to the #metoo movement was SD, in another thread, saying that if X number of women accused someone that was enough for him and forget due process, and the increased number of people coming forwards to report historical abuse has undoubtable increased. Did you miss this? "More than 40 people came forward as a result of the televised appeal but the vast majority of the claims have been dismissed, including several made by fantasists."

    In SDs eyes this is an open and shut case. 40 people? GUILTY
    Stop misrepresenting me. Not once have I said that due process should be ignored. I made it perfectly clear that this was my own personal barometer, and nothing to do with "due process":

    I am not a court of law - I don't profess to be a court of law - and I do not possess the means to impose judgements upon anyone, so there is no requirement for me to arrive at conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt. Probability is sufficient for me to arrive at a conclusion that is satisfactory for my own purposes - "in my book", so to speak. And since I have no reason to believe that most accusations of wrongdoing are not true, it follows that most accusations of wrongdoing are true, and I therefore shall treat them as if they were true, unless and until I have good reason not to.

    The idea that we should all demand legal standard near 100% proof of things during the normal conduct of our daily lives is patently ludicrous.

    Given that the previous topic on this subject was closed, I don't really understand what the purpose of this thread is.

  20. #20
    Mistaken for a man
    Registered: Jun 2000
    Location: Helsinki, Finland
    I'm just trying to find your point, SubJeff. No one here is saying that false accusations never happen. No one is saying false accusations are OK, because clearly they're not.

    We all agree that in a court of law no one should be found guilty if there's not enough proof. The fact that there's a risk of this sometimes happening, of any crime, is and should be a concern. But we're not a jury nor judges (well, some of us might be). Do you want us to sign a petition for the justice system to REALLY TAKE THIS 12% thing SERIOUSLY? Which I'm pretty sure is already done, case by case.

  21. #21
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Oh God here we go again.

    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Often there isn't even a shred of evidence, being hearsay or just the words of one individual which are often impossible to prove one way or the other, but that does not matter to the mob of angry people who yell "OFF WITH THIS HEAD". Half the time those accused are later proven to have been innocent, but the damage is already done. Either the persons life is COMPLETELY ruined and is never the same afterward, or the person commits suicide, or like in the above example, the police themselves are guilty of not considering a person innocent and put them in jail for x amount of years before the truth was revealed. Where is the justice in that?
    'Often there isn't even a shred of evidence'.... 'Half the time those accused are later proven to have been innocent, but the damage is already done.' Sorry, but lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen or that the woman's charge was 'false'. Please do not confuse lack of evidence with a 'false' charges; there is a difference. Lack of evidence does not prove that the assault didn't happen. False charges mean that the charges have been proven to be irrevocably false and invalid and that, no, the assault didn't happen. See the difference?

    And I call bullshit on your 'half the time' claim. Only 2% to 8% of sexual assault charges are proven to be false on a yearly basis and that's a far cry from 'half the time'. Educate yourself, please: https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/a...rosecute-non-s

    So, where's the justice for the victim whose life has been ruined because she couldn't produce photos and/or hospital reports or any other legally acceptable evidence proving that she had been raped?? You know, the victim who has to suffer the fact that everyone thinks she's (or he's) a liar now (and in some cases she/he loses their job and even friends) because too many people equate 'lack of evidence' with false charges? That same victim who also has to live with the fact that she/he has been horribly violated and assaulted but her/his assailant will go free due to lack of evidence? It's a two-way street, whether you like it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vasquez View Post
    I'd like to ask the same. Grabbing tits or jerking off in front of others is not a crime.
    Yes, Vas, grabbing tits is a crime since the minute you put your hands on another person's body without their consent it's considered assault. Jerking off in front of others; are those 'others' in consent and okay with the fact that a person is jerking off in front of them? Or, are those 'others' being coerced or even forced against their will to watch a person jerking off? If the former, then it's called 'consensual', if it's the latter, then it's considered sexual harassment, which, unfortunately, is pretty difficult to prove in court. Sexual harassment may not be considered an actual crime, but it is considered 'a violation of an individual's civil rights, since they are both considered forms of illegal discrimination under Title VII, under federal law, and under each state's own laws.' http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_lif...t-a-crime.html

    Nuthin' but love for ya, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    How are you linking the #metoo movement to this one case reported in the Guardian?
    Is there information contained in this case which somehow discredits the scores of people reporting their sexual assault experiences?

    Is the central message here that women should shut up about their assaults unless they have enough evidence to prosecute?
    I second that question, faetal. As I've already stated above, only 2% to 8% (some sources claim 10% as the higher figure) of sexual assault charges are proven to be false. Blanket disbelief of all women who file charges of sexual assault/harassment is discriminatory and exactly the type of mindset we have been fighting against for centuries. It's also one of the leading reasons too many people do not report sexual assaults; I mean, if no one is going to believe them, then why the fuck bother? Aaaannnddd then another sexual predator will go free to continue assaulting victims. Also, again, there is a distinct difference between lack of evidence and actual false charges.

    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    faetal - the central message is people ARE falsely accused of sexual crimes
    The actual figures for that are a lot smaller than you obviously want to acknowledge. https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/a...rosecute-non-s

    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    and to blanket beleive every accuser is an injustice.
    I thoroughly disagree. If the accusers are not believed, then the charges will not be investigated. It's also discriminatory to automatically not believe the victim, but to automatically believe the accused. And sexist as fuck. Sorry, but that's the way it's worked to date and that is the sexist mindset we're trying to, at best, eradicate, at the very least, provide education to those who want to believe that 'believing every accuser is an 'injustice'. The accusers should be believed to the point that there is an investigation. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    I think it's time for a change in the law; both presumed perp and victim should be anonymous until the trial is over.
    So, if someone like Weinstein, for example, is allowed to remain anonymous then he could very easily (and blatantly) continue to harass and sexually assault victims because potential victims wouldn't be aware that Weinstein has been accused of sexual assault and they don't know enough to steer clear of him? Because the charges against him haven't been heard in a court yet? Nope. I don't think that's a good idea. Besides, isn't that what happened in the first place; people in the movie industry kept their mouths shut, swept all allegations against Weinstein under the rug and either discredited his victims or just outright tried to shut them up? If the victim is asking for anonymity then yes, by all means grant the victim that right; it's usually the victims who are the ones actually being put on trial anyhow since the burden of proof lies with them. And that's a pretty fucking heavy burden.

    I do agree with your idea that it's time for a change in the law: I believe that all accusers should be presumed to be telling the truth until it is proven in a court of law that the accuser's charges are indeed false ....... or not. According to valid statistics, false claims are a lot less percentage-wise than many people want to believe.



    And with that, I am so done with this thread. I realize that I cannot be totally objective as I find myself wanting to paint all people who automatically doubt the victims' claims as being fucking misogynists (or at the very least, sexists); same with those who blather on about 'FALSE CHARGES!! FALSE CHARGES!!'. And I chastise myself for having such a discriminatory attitude (no, I really, truly do). I honestly believe everyone has the right to their opinions, even if those opinions differ from mine; only some opinions are formed as a result of ignorance of facts and statistics, as those facts and statistics blatantly prove. However, I do suggest you doubting Thomases try to walk a mile in a victim's shoes.



    Enough.

  22. #22
    Mistaken for a man
    Registered: Jun 2000
    Location: Helsinki, Finland
    Yes, right. I went and checked, in Finland "sexual harrassment" has been a legal term only since 2014! But I have never heard anyone being charged, let alone penalized for boob- or ass-touching, unless it's been somehow outrageously rough and repeated. Probably there are cases in the US for more random grabs, though.

  23. #23
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    allegations from multiple sources reduce that likelihood considerably.
    Doesn't the Heath case prove this untrue?

    I didn't even say that someone "must be guilty" if accused by several people, merely that, on the basis of probability, I am happy to treat them as if they did it until such a time as it is evident they did not
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    I am not a court of law - I don't profess to be a court of law
    No one said you were a court, I was challenging your 'happy to treat someone as guilty' is all. But if that's how you want to live your life, fine. I'm sure you can live with yourself

    Quote Originally Posted by Vasquez View Post
    Do you want us to sign a petition for the justice system to REALLY TAKE THIS 12% thing SERIOUSLY? Which I'm pretty sure is already done, case by case.
    This is your second strawman in a row.

    My point? It was just a post about false accusations being a real thing. I think the law must change re:anonymity.

    So, where's the justice for the victim whose life has been ruined because she couldn't produce photos and/or hospital reports or any other legally acceptable evidence proving that she had been raped?? You know, the victim who has to suffer the fact that everyone thinks she's (or he's) a liar now (and in some cases she/he loses their job and even friends) because too many people equate 'lack of evidence' with false charges?
    These are terrible cases, but two wrongs don't make a right.

    Blanket disbelief of all women who file charges of sexual assault/harassment is discriminatory and exactly the type of mindset we have been fighting against for centuries. It's also one of the leading reasons too many people do not report sexual assaults; I mean, if no one is going to believe them, then why the fuck bother?
    We shouldn't have blanket disbelief. This is not the same as blanket belief - it's perfectly possible to investigate without prejudice.

    The actual figures for that are a lot smaller than you obviously want to acknowledge.
    No, I acknowledge that. It's difficult to define 'false' because sometimes it's just a mistake (for whatever reason) and therefore in the data 'catch all' the numbers will be inflated. You see this in all sorts of data analysis.


    I thoroughly disagree. If the accusers are not believed, then the charges will not be investigated. It's also discriminatory to automatically not believe the victim, but to automatically believe the accused. And sexist as fuck.
    Ah, now this is where we agree, really, but with a caveat. I don't think you have to believe or disbelieve - you just have to investigate and if someone makes an accusation you investigate until you find the truth.

    So, if someone like Weinstein, for example, is allowed to remain anonymous then he could very easily (and blatantly) continue to harass and sexually assault victims because potential victims wouldn't be aware that Weinstein has been accused of sexual assault and they don't know enough to steer clear of him? Because the charges against him haven't been heard in a court yet? Nope. I don't think that's a good idea.
    Flip this though. Look at the case in the OP and watch that video. This poor guy had to tell every potential date that was under investigation. His life has been forever changed because of this. I think it unlikely that someone who is guilty will assault another person whilst under investigation as they'll be wary of getting into even more trouble. Of course there are nuts who would do it anyway but they'd probably do it anonymous or not.

    My final point is; it's not acceptable to tar people without proof because the injustice of the consequences when you are incorrect is just as wrong as the crime that has occurred when you are correct. A civilised society does not accept that occasionally one 'slips through the net' and tough luck. This is the same reason we have abolished the death penalty - getting it wrong is not acceptable, at all.

  24. #24
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    And Dia has entered. Logical debate - Over. Enjoy it while it lasted guys. Emotion from here on. I'm out.

  25. #25
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    Quote Originally Posted by Dia View Post
    I do agree with your idea that it's time for a change in the law: I believe that all accusers should be presumed to be telling the truth until it is proven in a court of law that the accuser's charges are indeed false ....... or not.
    Reading this chilled me.

Page 1 of 18 1234561116 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •