3 ms·

We never really had "innocent until proven guilty" in these circumstances. Legally sure, but courts have little involvement even now. Until recently, the women

by netcan 8y ago

We never really had "innocent until proven guilty" in these circumstances. Legally sure, but courts have little involvement even now. Until recently, the women/victim side was assumed guilty... still are in many places/circumstances. We're leaving judge and jury duty to the public, social media, old media, individuals and (above all) corporate policy. None of these operate on a presumption of innocence.

wutbrodo 8y ago
> We never really had "innocent until proven guilty" in these circumstances. Legally sure, but courts have little involvement even now. > Until recently, the women/victim side was assumed guilty... still are in many places/circumstances. The victim being "assumed guilty" is just an awkward phrasing of "innocent until proven guilty" for the perpetrator. What do you see as the difference?
- berbec 8y ago
  I see the difference in the way the victim and perpetrator are treated. If someone robs your house and you see them running away, television strapped to your back, you call the police and give testemony. You say what you saw and the jury judges on the merits of the case. What doesn't happen, in a robbery, is the defense team lining up a slew of witnesses talking about all the times you left your house unlocked, all the times you invited other suspicious people over, all the times you sold something on Craigslist and all the times you Googled the price of the TV that got stolen. The defence doesn't use this testemony to show that you really wanted to give your TV away, and it wasn't actually stolen, and even if it was, weren't you sorta asking for it anyway?
- netcan 8y ago
  I meant that when word gets out, someone is assumed guilty and socially sanctioned in some way.. at least. Previously it was generally the "young lady in question," as a matter of cultural prudence. I'm not saying that prejudice is right, it's just.. evidently hard to shake.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
In every case where it was the victim's word against the accused the court almost always used to side with whoever has more power in society. White woman accuses black man -> accused is guilty. rich woman accuses poor man -> accused is guilty black woman accuses white man ->accused is not guilty poor woman accuses rich man -> accused is not guilty It's still that way, sometimes. The difference is now is that "who has more power" suddenly varies a ton based on who's making the decision and the political optics of the situation. So some people on wall street (statistically richer and whiter than average) are scared (rationally or not, you decide) that they're now potentially vulnerable to false accusation when they were previously insulated to some degree by being (mostly) rich and white.

by netcan 8y ago

wutbrodo 8y ago

> We never really had "innocent until proven guilty" in these circumstances. Legally sure, but courts have little involvement even now. > Until recently, the women/victim side was assumed guilty... still are in many places/circumstances. The victim being "assumed guilty" is just an awkward phrasing of "innocent until proven guilty" for the perpetrator. What do you see as the difference?

berbec 8y ago
I see the difference in the way the victim and perpetrator are treated. If someone robs your house and you see them running away, television strapped to your back, you call the police and give testemony. You say what you saw and the jury judges on the merits of the case. What doesn't happen, in a robbery, is the defense team lining up a slew of witnesses talking about all the times you left your house unlocked, all the times you invited other suspicious people over, all the times you sold something on Craigslist and all the times you Googled the price of the TV that got stolen. The defence doesn't use this testemony to show that you really wanted to give your TV away, and it wasn't actually stolen, and even if it was, weren't you sorta asking for it anyway?
netcan 8y ago
I meant that when word gets out, someone is assumed guilty and socially sanctioned in some way.. at least. Previously it was generally the "young lady in question," as a matter of cultural prudence. I'm not saying that prejudice is right, it's just.. evidently hard to shake.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

In every case where it was the victim's word against the accused the court almost always used to side with whoever has more power in society. White woman accuses black man -> accused is guilty. rich woman accuses poor man -> accused is guilty black woman accuses white man ->accused is not guilty poor woman accuses rich man -> accused is not guilty It's still that way, sometimes. The difference is now is that "who has more power" suddenly varies a ton based on who's making the decision and the political optics of the situation. So some people on wall street (statistically richer and whiter than average) are scared (rationally or not, you decide) that they're now potentially vulnerable to false accusation when they were previously insulated to some degree by being (mostly) rich and white.