Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Too bad America has a mob mentality. It's guilty until proven innocent. And the media will eat the accused alive.
Well said☝️ and unfortunately, true...
Absolutely, when it comes to the law. We can’t police personal belief like that though and I could still, say, know that someone stole my wallet even if they were never caught and convicted.
We do need to recognize how few sexual assaults (I assume that’s what this question is getting at) result in convictions. Many people who are not proven guilty are in reality guilty. We at a bare minimum need to avoid treating anyone that comes forward like an evil “slut,” lying for attention simply if there is no conviction.
Without a doubt. Something many unfortunately seem to forget.
In a court of law yes definitely as many have been punished for crimes not committed based on opinions and not facts. In regards to personal, it becomes more complicated. Patterns of behavior, circumstances, and emotions tend to dictate more than they probably should.
I usually agree, when we discuss the legal system. But the problem with these rape cases is a) it's about the social mores, not the justice system, and b) rape cases is often one word against another, so I tend to believe the victim unless it's demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the women made it up.
I accuse you of a sexual crime. Prove me wrong.
Why are you accusing me?
You attempted to molest me back in April of 2004. Prove me wrong.
I was four, dipshit
Alas, name calling won’t remove the point I am making. Put yourselves in the shoes of someone a bit older and pick apart my true points that you are attempting to deflect.
My point is that it depends on the individual case. Generally speaking, I believe the victims, unless there is a motive for why they might lie.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is 50. Say I am 22 now. How can you prove that you didn’t molest me back in 1997?
Or he’ll, make it so I can remember better. Say it was 2005 instead of 1997.
If someone is falsely accused, I agree that is horrible. But unless there's a motive, there's no reason I'd think the woman lied.
There can always be some sort of motive. Maybe you’re just some sexual deviant preying on a little kid. Perhaps you hold a position of power and are making decisions I don’t agree with. I can use our fictitious past to remove you.
I understand the concept. That's why I'm saying there'd need to be a potential motive for a lie before I'd be skeptical of the story.
Is there not? The burden of proof needs to be on the accuser, not the one being accused. If you are famous, have power, or are wealthy, there is always motive for someone to defame or slander you. Particularly if it helps advance their ideology, standing, or their own power, fame, or wealth. I want to sympathize with the victim just as much as he next person, but I find it hard if there is doubt to the reality of their claim. I need some sort of proof. Although I’m Conservative, and always have been, I was against impeaching Clinton until there was some sort of evidence. Same with other Dems/Reps that were scrutinized unjustly due to false allegations.
Well of course we should look for evidence one way or another. My assumption of guilt or innocence in these cases is only applicable when it's just one word against another.
Plenty of women have lied with no real motive (Rolling Stone case, Duke lacrosse case). People are bad, people lie. Sexual crimes are no different. Ruining someone’s life over an unproven accusation is morally egregious.
By the way, those are just two cases off the top of my head. I️ don’t go around memorizing false rape cases. I’m sure that there are dozens more. Who knows how many false accusations there have been?
I’m all for victims’ rights; but due process is every bit as important.
I agree due process is important. But as I said, rape cases are particularly difficult because it's often word against word. How do you find proof? Usually there aren't witnesses.
That didn’t take long. Roy Moore’s accuser worked for the Clinton Campaign.
Murder is even harder, one of the people is dead. There are usually no witnesses. Should murder accusations be guilty until proven innocent?
Murder you can always find fingerprints and DNA and the like.
Rape cases have DNA available as well. And there is often physical evidence; resistance, etc. Is the story believable? If the sex was non-consensual, where is the evidence?
That’s correct, so I’d have to agree.
This user is currently being ignored
In law and court innocent until proven guilty, in public opinion not so much, we all have our personal opinions.
Agree. Think Judge Roy Moore.
Agree. We don’t need the Salem witch trials again.
Agree of course.