4 ms·

This strategy contradicts the "innocent until proven guilty" feature of our justice system, which exists for a very good reason: it is worse to send an innocent

This strategy contradicts the "innocent until proven guilty" feature of our justice system, which exists for a very good reason: it is worse to send an innocent person to prison than it is to sometimes allow crimes to go unpunished. Additionally if we followed your recommendation (which is essentially to lower the evidentiary standard for rape), it would probably result in more false accusations, which would multiply the number of wrongful convictions.

joshuamorton 9y ago
The Justice system is distinct from the social system. Or do you think that since Roy Moore, as an example, was never found guilty of a crime, he is innocent and the rumors about him should be ignored? What you're arguidng for is exactly why we have the Weinstein's of the world, and why they feel empowered to abuse.
- apatters 9y ago
  I didn't suggest they should be ignored, but I'll ask you the reverse question, do you think people should be fired any time some nasty rumors about them gain traction? That's not a society I want to live in.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    That's not the reverse question. You stated that we should use the innocent until proven guilty standard everywhere. I'm claiming that that's not good. There are alternatives to innocent until proven guilty that aren't "fire someone because of a nasty rumor."
heartbreak 9y ago
I love it when people try to explain our legal system to attorneys.
apatters 9y ago
I was on my phone when I read and replied to rayiner's comment and I misinterpreted it as advocating for lowering the evidentiary standards in criminal cases. The comment still doesn't make a lot of sense to me in the context of workplace standards. Frequently claims of sexual harassment DO result in the alleged harasser being dismissed, regardless of whether they're true. So isn't this just an argument for the status quo? And if the evidentiary standard is lowered further, won't it still translate into a larger percentage of rape/harassment claims being fraudulent? Is this really the best way to address the problem of unprosecuted rapes?

joshuamorton 9y ago

The Justice system is distinct from the social system. Or do you think that since Roy Moore, as an example, was never found guilty of a crime, he is innocent and the rumors about him should be ignored? What you're arguidng for is exactly why we have the Weinstein's of the world, and why they feel empowered to abuse.

apatters 9y ago
I didn't suggest they should be ignored, but I'll ask you the reverse question, do you think people should be fired any time some nasty rumors about them gain traction? That's not a society I want to live in.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  That's not the reverse question. You stated that we should use the innocent until proven guilty standard everywhere. I'm claiming that that's not good. There are alternatives to innocent until proven guilty that aren't "fire someone because of a nasty rumor."

heartbreak 9y ago

I love it when people try to explain our legal system to attorneys.

apatters 9y ago

I was on my phone when I read and replied to rayiner's comment and I misinterpreted it as advocating for lowering the evidentiary standards in criminal cases. The comment still doesn't make a lot of sense to me in the context of workplace standards. Frequently claims of sexual harassment DO result in the alleged harasser being dismissed, regardless of whether they're true. So isn't this just an argument for the status quo? And if the evidentiary standard is lowered further, won't it still translate into a larger percentage of rape/harassment claims being fraudulent? Is this really the best way to address the problem of unprosecuted rapes?