Show of HandsShow of Hands

Comments: Add Comment

ladyniner81 no hope for humanity
11/11/17 2:10 pm

Too bad America has a mob mentality. It's guilty until proven innocent. And the media will eat the accused alive.

Jazzy5 USA
11/13/17 10:43 am

Well said☝️ and unfortunately, true...

sydwel
11/10/17 10:50 pm

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.

JudicialJedi321 This is How Liberty Dies
11/10/17 10:49 am

Without a doubt. Something many unfortunately seem to forget.

Ducttape
11/10/17 10:40 am

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.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/10/17 6:33 am

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.

Reply
Source
11/10/17 2:11 pm

I accuse you of a sexual crime. Prove me wrong.

Source
11/10/17 2:54 pm

You attempted to molest me back in April of 2004. Prove me wrong.

Source
11/10/17 2:59 pm

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.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/10/17 3:03 pm

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.

Source
11/10/17 3:05 pm

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?

Source
11/10/17 3:06 pm

Or he’ll, make it so I can remember better. Say it was 2005 instead of 1997.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/10/17 3:27 pm

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.

Source
11/10/17 3:29 pm

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.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/10/17 3:31 pm

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.

Source
11/10/17 3:37 pm

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.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/10/17 3:54 pm

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.

thebarr
11/10/17 5:10 pm

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.

thebarr
11/10/17 5:12 pm

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.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/10/17 6:58 pm

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.

thebarr
11/11/17 6:00 am

Murder is even harder, one of the people is dead. There are usually no witnesses. Should murder accusations be guilty until proven innocent?

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/11/17 6:27 am

Murder you can always find fingerprints and DNA and the like.

thebarr
11/11/17 6:29 am

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?

Liberty 4,032,064
11/10/17 6:00 am

That’s correct, so I’d have to agree.

Reply
Nemacyst No Lives Matter
11/10/17 5:42 am

This user is currently being ignored

Reply
zimmy Florida
11/10/17 5:08 am

In law and court innocent until proven guilty, in public opinion not so much, we all have our personal opinions.

Reply
TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
11/10/17 1:42 am

Agree. Think Judge Roy Moore.

Reply
SouthernLaw Old North State
11/09/17 10:50 pm

Agree. We don’t need the Salem witch trials again.

Reply
gluxford1 Arizona
11/09/17 7:43 pm

Agree of course.

Reply