4 ms·
> We never really had "innocent until proven guilty" in these circumstances. Legally sure, but courts have little involvement even now. > Until recently, the w
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.