2 ms·

It would, but I wouldn't want to entirely give up victim privacy for it.

by deogeo 8y ago

hdfbdtbcdg 8y ago
If the accused is innocent then they are the victim and the accuser is the perpetrator.
- tus87 8y ago
  Leftists struggle badly with this concept. Which is funny as decades ago it was leftists who would have been fighting against police state mentality while right wingers would be dismissive of accused people. Bleeding hearts and all that. Except when the accused is black, leftists can still get out To Kill a Mockingbird when it suits them. Then 3rd wave feminazism happened and our standards of impartial police investigations, independent courts and a fair trial resemble medieval Europe. Or North Korea or China.
- DanBC 8y ago
  That's not necessarily true though is it? Two people can have different interpretations of events without one of them making maliciously false allegations. The complainant can have an honest, sincere, belief that they did not give consent. And, for phone evidence, there are good reasons why a complainant may say one thing to police but something else to friends of the accused.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    > That's not necessarily true though is it? [..] Two people can have different interpretations of events without one of them making maliciously false allegations. You don't even have to go that far - the allegation could be true, but newly uncovered evidence could cast sufficient doubt that the accused is not found guilty. E.g. an eyewitness correctly identifies an assailant, but it is later revealed she wasn't wearing her prescription glasses.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 8y ago
    Indeed there are three states. Guilty, innocent and not sure. A lot rides on it. A heinous crime must be punished (and most likely future ones prevented) but we absolutely can't send innocent people to prison - and they shouldn't spend years under a cloud of suspicion. The police, CPS and the courts have a really difficult job.

It would, but I wouldn't want to entirely give up victim privacy for it.

by deogeo 8y ago

It would, but I wouldn't want to entirely give up victim privacy for it.

hdfbdtbcdg 8y ago

If the accused is innocent then they are the victim and the accuser is the perpetrator.

tus87 8y ago
Leftists struggle badly with this concept. Which is funny as decades ago it was leftists who would have been fighting against police state mentality while right wingers would be dismissive of accused people. Bleeding hearts and all that. Except when the accused is black, leftists can still get out To Kill a Mockingbird when it suits them. Then 3rd wave feminazism happened and our standards of impartial police investigations, independent courts and a fair trial resemble medieval Europe. Or North Korea or China.
DanBC 8y ago
That's not necessarily true though is it? Two people can have different interpretations of events without one of them making maliciously false allegations. The complainant can have an honest, sincere, belief that they did not give consent. And, for phone evidence, there are good reasons why a complainant may say one thing to police but something else to friends of the accused.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > That's not necessarily true though is it? [..] Two people can have different interpretations of events without one of them making maliciously false allegations. You don't even have to go that far - the allegation could be true, but newly uncovered evidence could cast sufficient doubt that the accused is not found guilty. E.g. an eyewitness correctly identifies an assailant, but it is later revealed she wasn't wearing her prescription glasses.
- hdfbdtbcdg 8y ago
  Indeed there are three states. Guilty, innocent and not sure. A lot rides on it. A heinous crime must be punished (and most likely future ones prevented) but we absolutely can't send innocent people to prison - and they shouldn't spend years under a cloud of suspicion. The police, CPS and the courts have a really difficult job.