In issues of sexual harassment (where the accused does not immediately confess), is it more important to believe the person bringing forward allegations, or to assume innocence of the person being accused?
I’m disappointed SOH, the issue is not that simple.
Any allegations should be treated seriously, but it is beyond me that anyone would propose the idea that the defendant should be assumed guilty without any investigation into the validity of the claim. At the same time, these charges are very serious and should not be ignored. They should be investigated and treated just as any criminal case would be treated.
Assume innocence, since in the Court of Law you are presumed innocent, until proven guilty.
If these women were faking it why have these many women not made “fake” accusations towards other presidents society disapproves of?
I’d hate to be single and dating in these dates of PC.
Assume innocence...unless it’s a politician you disagree with. Then they should hang for their alleged crimes.
Wow SOH tosses up the deceptively worded false dichotomy and the general public doesn’t fall for it. Nice job people. This slightly restores my faith in humanity
Although reading the comments, it is pretty alarming how many people don't understand why you shouldn't just blindly believe the victim. Yes I understand it's difficult for many people to come forward after they've been abused, and they should definitely be listened to and cared for, but given that this is a serious accusation it's important to have some skepticism before convicting the person thats been accused, to a life of despair (potentially for something they didn't do) innocent until proven guilty
In a legal sense it is important to maintain innocence. However in a political and personal sense I always believe the accuser, unless they have been totally discredited.
It’s a good thing you’re not in charge of the law in this country 😉
I was raped as a kid so I tend to believe victims. My rapist is still coaching kids, I tried to turn him in and the police didn't believe me, because he has a wife and kids of his own. These people don't stand to gain much by lying.
Sorry to hear that, that is unfortunate. But in a court of law it's important to stay unbiased because there are crazy people out there who falsely accuse people. And those false accusers make things more difficult for people in a genuine abuse cases (like yourself), which is why I think false accusers, regardless of how uncommon they are, are in fact worse than actual rapists. Just my opinion though, and it's a close call... I hope you are well, have a good Thanksgiving
It disturbs me that so many women have lied about being assaulted. For now, I choose to believe a women as long as it’s not during an election.
In a legal sense, innocent until proven guilty and due process.
Personally, because of the seriousness of the situation and the victim mentality (courage to come forward, etc), I believe the victim. If they turn out to be a liar, they have seriously tarnished my respect for them. But those few instances of false accusations shouldn’t make us skeptical of brave people who come forward with real experiences.
Indeed they should. Victims need to be treated nicely, but some skepticism is probably good. If we automatically believe every victim were gonna have a lot of innocent people in jail
One incident - presume innocence.
Multiple incidents/people - presume guilty.
That's dangerous thinking. Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. Always allow real evidence to be presented before assuming. Otherwise you can end up with egg on your face.
I don't jump on the bandwagon. Facts most be presented, as well as other factors. But multiple claims is need for closer look.
Any claim needs to be investigated regardless of how many people present it. Just no conclusions should be made until all evidence is present and accounted for.
I will assume innocence if there is no collaborating evidence to support the accusation. When multiple accusations surface over time and a pattern emerges, I tend to support the victims.
Liberals, you really need to read the constitution. Most of you disagree with polls that are founded in Constitutional rights.
But they hate the constitution and want it done away with. They want laws that pander to their feelings. Whatever they are at any given time.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard, not a political or personal one.
You judge someone on someone else’s unproven story.
I was raped as a child, so I tend to believe victims. Just a personal thing. Of course if they are obviously lying that's another issue but it took me 30 years to come to terms with what happened to me. People typically don't lie about this stuff for fun.
Yes and for the most parts so do courts.
Luckily in Ohio we just pasted a victim protection law.
Witch! Get the witch!
“Innocent until proven guilty.” Otherwise we’re all one false accusation from jail.
Unfortunately my friend, we are all still one false accusation away from jail. The legal system is far from perfect...
Criminal case? Assume innocence.
Civil case? No assumption of innocence or guilt.
Not that complicated
Neither? You investigate and find the truth.
If you can't find the truth, then which side is more likely is often based on a very slim margin of more evidence being on that side. That's why we presume innocence in this country.
Innocent until proven guilty unless they're a Republican (If I'm a Democrat)
Innocent until proven guilty unless they're a Democrat (If I'm a Republican)
Seems to be lately
Lately this country seems to have a mob mentality. It's "Kevin Spacey harassed a 14 year old kid at a party? Let's get the guns Harry, we got a witch hunt to start!" Instead of looking at why there was a 14 year old unsupervised kid at a party with adults. Or if anyone was lying. any evidence, period (I'm using this as an example)
Exactly. Like how many people could even imagine Ryan Seacrest forcing himself on ANYONE?
What is important is to believe and support the accuser if the person being accused is in the other party. Of equal importance is to do everything possible to degrade and dismiss the accuser as a liar if the person being accused is in your party. It’s actually pretty easy. You go with whatever fits your narrative.
You have to believe the accuser. It doesn't mean the accused is convicted without evidence. But to say we don't believe you until you prove it is nonsense. It's traumatizing for women(and men). In most cases the accused admit to it, in cases where the person is a predator like Cosby, Weinstein, Roy Moore. They'll deny but there's more then enough accusers to make it obvious they're predators.
So many mindless troglodytes parroting "innocent until proven guilty" without the remotest idea of what that means...
Please explain. I never attended law school.
It's not that hard to have a basic understanding of the presumption of innocence, you elitist fool
Well apparently we have different understandings to what it implies. And apparently you misunderstood me. I never have been to law school, I study German language. Now you your ad hominem remarks are out of your system. Would you kindly explain what you understand it as?
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase referring how the state is meant to treat suspects. It does not mean that a person is innocent of something if they don't get proven guilty.
This question is oddly worded, isn't investigation preceeded by belief that you'll find proof of guilt? If not then what is the point of investigating in the first place? I don't see detectives out there in the field with the mindset that they're looking to clear someone's name, they're looking for evidence to support their belief that someone is guilty. Usually that belief begins with an accusation.
I hesitate to take either side, but not giving the alleged victim a fair listening to often leads to a culture of perpetuation. I think people worry a lot about weaponized claims and that’s why it’s important to REVIEW the allegation objectively and not jump to conclusions. Honestly the trial by social media is damaging to the ideals of democracy.
Innocent until proven guilty
At the very least, the victims should get a restraining order on the accused, so just Incase the person actually sexually assaulted the victim, the victim would feel safe.
Always innocent until proven guilty. Never has it change and never will it change. Dumb liberals ruining our judicial system.
I don’t like the dichotomy here because I don’t do either.
Is it ok to assume someone is a Nazi because there are 300,000 liberals who say he is? I mean... 300,000 people say the same thing. It must be true.
Not to say I don't sympathize with any possible victims, but I like to think about it thoroughly before condemning a person. There are false accusations that happen, after all.
300,000 people will believe someone is a rapist if there was evidence
300,000 people will believe it with zero evidence other than the "victim" said so it happens all the time
It seems a conundrum in some ways. For instance, Bill Cosby had 59 women come forward to accuse him of sexual harassment/assault. All 59 told strikingly similar and very detailed stories, from all walks of life, and spanning the continent. Are ALL 59 lying? Really?? Are they ALL willing to risk humiliation by exposing their truths before family, friends, and the world? In SPITE of the judicial system not dictating an outcome FOR me, at some point, I believed Cosby guilty. Is this an unreasonable conclusion to draw?...
Innocent until proven guilty.
The King of sexual harassment, proven on video boasting it, calls out Al Franken and says nothing to call for teen molester Roy Moore to step down, as his party's leadership has done. How does ANYONE continue to support this sick and depraved, poor excuse for a "president?"
...is also a sociopath, cruel and vulgar!!!
At the rate they’re going it’ll soon be wise to assume the accuser is lying.
Assume innocence. However, the court of public opinion rarely works that way.
I was molested 43 years ago as a 12 yr old. Horribly traumatic experience. But if I came forward today, I wouldn’t be blubbering in front of the camera and, basically, need to read from a script. As traumatic as it was, women have come so far that, after this many years, I have the strength to maintain my composure and could confront him face to face with my own words. It just bothered me so much that that woman was so obviously reading from a script. He’s innocent until proven guilty, or at least convincingly accused.
I wouldn’t believe you unless there was proof. That’s how this works. There’s nothing we can do to be on your side if you confess 40 years after it happened. I hate rapists and I think they should burn in hell, however we can’t assume without evidence.
I’m not “confessing,” since I didn’t do anything. And I’m not publicly accusing anyone. I told my parents when it happened, and it was handled then. For them, the trauma of their 12 yr old little girl was enough proof. Plus, I wasn’t the only one. It was a relative, and he’d done it to other cousins, one of which was an adult.
Pretty sure I was saying what you said, anyway...???
I believe you Katrina.
Well, thanks for that. But that wasn’t the point of my original comment. To me personally, the one woman I saw wasn’t convincing as having been assaulted by him, and that’s neither here, nor there; since, I believe he’s innocent until proven guilty. It was just my observation. I shared my story because it is similar. The difference is, I came forward when it happened.
If there’s hard evidence like a video or picture that’s pretty clear.
If it’s accusations, it should be innocent until proven guilty. This media-mod rule, primarily endorsed and egged-on by democrats, is ridiculous.
I'm very conflicted on this question
Good to see overwhelming majority still supports innocence until proven guilty. But it seems those numbers would be reversed if instead of a random person being accused, the question specifically named Roy Moore. Somehow it seems a whole lot of people find him not worthy of the same.
Why is it that we don’t hold our president to the same high standards as we do actors, directors, state politicians, etc?
Bill Clinton is no longer President.
23 or something women were paid by cnn to confess about Trump...yet the husband of the opposite candidate was impeached for sexual misconduct. Get your facts right. Just because Trump is a rich old whit man does not mean he’s a rapist.
Democrats...WTF...ever hear of “innocent until proven guilty”?
More important to believe the victim outside of a court. In court, accuser has burden of proof.
That 1977 yearbook signature could be the modern equivalent of Lewinski's blue dress, if proven authentic.
It is interesting that Moore married in 1985 and is still married to her. Of course, she is 14 years younger than he is, so if my math is correct, he was 40 and she was about 26. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
No “victim“ has the right to be BELIEVED. Every “victim“ has the right to be HEARD.
Every accused person has the right to be presumed innocent UNLESS proven guilty.
Except when egged by liberal press. They seemed to want to decide innocent or guilty
Allegation = investigation
There is no reason to disbelieve the accuser because there evidence indicating they should not be believed.
There is no need for assuming innocence because they are not yet guilty.
Things like this need to incubate for a while.
All allegations should be taken seriously. That they are so easily dismissed is part of the reason many victims don’t come forward early on. That doesn’t presume that the accused are guilty, just that information and evidence needs to be gathered to make a sound determination. The process is no different than for other crimes regarding the accused but we have a real problem blaming and shaming victims of sexual assault that the either/or nature of this question absolutely serves to further highlight. We don’t ask this question in this way when someone accuses another individual of theft or murder. We hold the accused innocent until proven guilty but also investigate the claims of the accuser (aka believe them).
Tired of this “trial by social media”. If the accused admits it or there is unbiased evidence, that’s fine. But in these “he said, she said” situations, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of the accused. If that was you or your loved one, you would want your side to be told. The benefit of this society is we have a privilege of proving our innocence and being presumed to be innocent until evidence shows otherwise.