3 ms·

> All criminal accusations, including true ones, should be treated as false until the accused is proven guilty. No, they need to be treated as unproven, a ver

> All criminal accusations, including true ones, should be treated as false until the accused is proven guilty. No, they need to be treated as unproven, a very critical difference. Just to be clear, witness testimony, including testimony FROM THE VICTIM, is evidence of the crime. Just for some reason, in rape cases, we go all wonky with this principle.

Sebb767 5y ago
Testimony is seen as wonky in all kinds of cases. The problem with testimony about rape, however, is that, in those cases, supporting evidence is rarer than usual and even when it exists, proving it was non-consensual at the time is even harder (especially when relationships or affairs are involved).
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  Yes, rape is more difficult to prove than a number of other crimes. That is no reason to jump to a default "assume the accusation is false".
  - ziml77 5y ago
    The reason to default to that is because a principle of our legal system is that people are innocent until proven guilty. On top of that proving someone guilty requires going beyond reasonable doubt.
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      The principle is the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, NOT that the accuser is making a false accusation. There is a reason the verdict is "not guilty" instead of "innocent". After a not guilty verdict the legal system still does not assume the accuser was making a false accusation.
      - Sebb767 5y ago
        > There is a reason the verdict is "not guilty" instead of "innocent". Both verdicts exists, actually; the latter one is just far rarer (since it is both harder to prove and usually not what is argued about).
        Ensorceled 5y ago
        Yes, and almost always a either a case of mistaken identity or emerging malfeasance by either witnesses or prosecution. Ironically, a provable case of false rape accusation might result in this verdict.
  - deelowe 5y ago
    Depends. Are certain groups disproportionally more likely to benefit from said accusations? Sorry, it needs to be said. It's easier to take one side of an argument when it's less likely to affect you personally.
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      What are you actually claiming here? You stance is unclear.
      - deelowe 5y ago
        That this is a contentious topic with biases on both sides. One group clearly benefits from any accusations being squashed before ever being investigated. Another benefits from never having to prove their accusations hold merit. This is why due process is important.
        Ensorceled 5y ago
        I see this a lot in these discussions. What do you think Trump or Cosby's accusers gained by their accusations holding merit?
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Yes, generally powerful men disproportionately benefit from accusations that a rape claim is false. No doubt some are false, but have not seen any evidence suggesting the majority are false.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    > That is no reason to jump to a default "assume the accusation is false". That's also not what I was trying to say. I only explained why testimony is far more doubted in rape cases than in most other cases. In general, I agree with you that accusations should be treated as unproven, so neither false nor true; we have a justice system to give a final verdict.
technothrasher 5y ago
> No, they need to be treated as unproven, a very critical difference. Right. I have a jar of gumballs and tell you I think there is an even number of gumballs in it. Do you believe me? If you don't, does that mean you believe there are in fact an odd number of gumballs in it? No, you do not believe either that there are an odd or an even number, because you just don't know. For a criminal accusation , your initial belief should not be guilty or innocent, it should be, "I just don't know".
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  Yeah, "it is unverified or untested or unproven" seems to be a very hard concept for "black and white" brains to process. People keep following up "it is unproven" with "well then it must be false". EDIT: judging by the downvotes, they are also making the leap to the original gumball counter must be lying ...
skhr0680 5y ago
> including testimony FROM THE VICTIM, is evidence of the crime. Just for some reason, in rape cases, we go all wonky with this principle. In a criminal trial: Victim: This person did it Defendant: No I didn't Not guilty
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  That is not how it works, a large number of people are convicted on eye witness testimony from a single accuser.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    Yes, they shouldn't.
weimerica 5y ago
> Just to be clear, witness testimony, including testimony FROM THE VICTIM, is evidence of the crime. Just for some reason, in rape cases, we go all wonky with this principle. People lie, people have memory issues. Complicating things is the lovely issue modernity has brought, of two adults getting intoxicated and fornicating followed by regret and rape accusations sometime later. Then we have weaponized accusations - just like we have keyboard warriors making false police reports to have their opposition receive a SWAT team visit, we have people that will make false accusations to get revenge after a perceived slight. What is wonky to me is the people who hear an accusation and treat it like the Gospel, destroying the accused depriving them of any possible justice. This is what is truly, absolutely, criminally insane.
ralfn 5y ago
1. By the public at large it should not be treated in any regard, false or not. 2. The state is the only authorized monopoly of violence and they should treat unproven and untrue as identical, and the only place where that decision is made is in a courtroom. 3. The 'believe the victims' activists however are rightfully (IMHO) suggesting to break principle #2 because there is institutional and systemic supression of the rule of law being applied properly. I would consider this civil disobedience. 4. The state needs to get it's act together and administer the law properly. Only through reform can they regain the legitimacy that is required for #2. 5. Those reforms should focus on racism, sexism and classism. It should focus on what part of the law is too ambiguous for either law enforcement and the judiciary branch. 6. This might include actually blinding the court, i.e. offer only verifiable facts that are admissable and can not be utilized as widgets for race, gender or social economic positions. If you don't think the legal system has a problem ask yourself why every lawyer recommends the defendant to wear a suit to court. How could it matter if the process was assumed to be without bias.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Sorry, don't see how 3 in your "syllogism" is remotely true. If 10 employees of yours come to you and accuse another employee of sexual harassment and you fire that employee, at no point were you acting as the state or using violence.
- bscphil 5y ago
  > The state is the only authorized monopoly of violence and they should treat unproven and untrue as identical, and the only place where that decision is made is in a courtroom. This is completely wrong. If the state treated all accusations as untrue prior to conviction, they would not send armed men to haul you to prison, bar you from release unless you can bail yourself out (or sometimes not at all), and not have a prosecutor charge you with a crime. This is no petty distinction. In order to function in its judiciary role, the state in fact must distinguish between plausibly true accusations and not plausible accusations, and must treat certain plausibly true accusations as "unproven" but not untrue, and take steps to make sure the accused does not flee into another country or commit further crimes.
kergonath 5y ago
This is bonkers. We are innocent until proven guilty, not "unproven". Witness testimony on its own is circumstantial evidence in general. Witnesses are very unreliable.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  We are innocent until proven guilty, I never disputed that. I'm saying the accusation, the witness testimony, is NOT assumed false, the accusation is simply unproven. If the jury/judge believes the testimony, they may convict on that testimony. Then the accused is proven guilty. That the accusation started off being false and then magically became true when when the jury believed it is the bonkers belief here. The fact that witness testimony is unreliable is a big part of WHY the accused is presumed innocent.
brigandish 5y ago
All criminal accusations need to be treated as unproven, of course, could not agree more. Also, all those accused of a crime (and those not!) need to be treated as innocent until they are proven guilty.

Sebb767 5y ago

Testimony is seen as wonky in all kinds of cases. The problem with testimony about rape, however, is that, in those cases, supporting evidence is rarer than usual and even when it exists, proving it was non-consensual at the time is even harder (especially when relationships or affairs are involved).

Ensorceled 5y ago
Yes, rape is more difficult to prove than a number of other crimes. That is no reason to jump to a default "assume the accusation is false".
- ziml77 5y ago
  The reason to default to that is because a principle of our legal system is that people are innocent until proven guilty. On top of that proving someone guilty requires going beyond reasonable doubt.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    The principle is the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, NOT that the accuser is making a false accusation. There is a reason the verdict is "not guilty" instead of "innocent". After a not guilty verdict the legal system still does not assume the accuser was making a false accusation.
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      > There is a reason the verdict is "not guilty" instead of "innocent". Both verdicts exists, actually; the latter one is just far rarer (since it is both harder to prove and usually not what is argued about).
      - Ensorceled 5y ago
        Yes, and almost always a either a case of mistaken identity or emerging malfeasance by either witnesses or prosecution. Ironically, a provable case of false rape accusation might result in this verdict.
- deelowe 5y ago
  Depends. Are certain groups disproportionally more likely to benefit from said accusations? Sorry, it needs to be said. It's easier to take one side of an argument when it's less likely to affect you personally.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    What are you actually claiming here? You stance is unclear.
    - deelowe 5y ago
      That this is a contentious topic with biases on both sides. One group clearly benefits from any accusations being squashed before ever being investigated. Another benefits from never having to prove their accusations hold merit. This is why due process is important.
      - Ensorceled 5y ago
        I see this a lot in these discussions. What do you think Trump or Cosby's accusers gained by their accusations holding merit?
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Yes, generally powerful men disproportionately benefit from accusations that a rape claim is false. No doubt some are false, but have not seen any evidence suggesting the majority are false.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > That is no reason to jump to a default "assume the accusation is false". That's also not what I was trying to say. I only explained why testimony is far more doubted in rape cases than in most other cases. In general, I agree with you that accusations should be treated as unproven, so neither false nor true; we have a justice system to give a final verdict.

technothrasher 5y ago

> No, they need to be treated as unproven, a very critical difference. Right. I have a jar of gumballs and tell you I think there is an even number of gumballs in it. Do you believe me? If you don't, does that mean you believe there are in fact an odd number of gumballs in it? No, you do not believe either that there are an odd or an even number, because you just don't know. For a criminal accusation , your initial belief should not be guilty or innocent, it should be, "I just don't know".

Ensorceled 5y ago
Yeah, "it is unverified or untested or unproven" seems to be a very hard concept for "black and white" brains to process. People keep following up "it is unproven" with "well then it must be false". EDIT: judging by the downvotes, they are also making the leap to the original gumball counter must be lying ...

skhr0680 5y ago

> including testimony FROM THE VICTIM, is evidence of the crime. Just for some reason, in rape cases, we go all wonky with this principle. In a criminal trial: Victim: This person did it Defendant: No I didn't Not guilty

Ensorceled 5y ago
That is not how it works, a large number of people are convicted on eye witness testimony from a single accuser.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Yes, they shouldn't.

weimerica 5y ago

> Just to be clear, witness testimony, including testimony FROM THE VICTIM, is evidence of the crime. Just for some reason, in rape cases, we go all wonky with this principle. People lie, people have memory issues. Complicating things is the lovely issue modernity has brought, of two adults getting intoxicated and fornicating followed by regret and rape accusations sometime later. Then we have weaponized accusations - just like we have keyboard warriors making false police reports to have their opposition receive a SWAT team visit, we have people that will make false accusations to get revenge after a perceived slight. What is wonky to me is the people who hear an accusation and treat it like the Gospel, destroying the accused depriving them of any possible justice. This is what is truly, absolutely, criminally insane.

ralfn 5y ago

1. By the public at large it should not be treated in any regard, false or not. 2. The state is the only authorized monopoly of violence and they should treat unproven and untrue as identical, and the only place where that decision is made is in a courtroom. 3. The 'believe the victims' activists however are rightfully (IMHO) suggesting to break principle #2 because there is institutional and systemic supression of the rule of law being applied properly. I would consider this civil disobedience. 4. The state needs to get it's act together and administer the law properly. Only through reform can they regain the legitimacy that is required for #2. 5. Those reforms should focus on racism, sexism and classism. It should focus on what part of the law is too ambiguous for either law enforcement and the judiciary branch. 6. This might include actually blinding the court, i.e. offer only verifiable facts that are admissable and can not be utilized as widgets for race, gender or social economic positions. If you don't think the legal system has a problem ask yourself why every lawyer recommends the defendant to wear a suit to court. How could it matter if the process was assumed to be without bias.

whimsicalism 5y ago
Sorry, don't see how 3 in your "syllogism" is remotely true. If 10 employees of yours come to you and accuse another employee of sexual harassment and you fire that employee, at no point were you acting as the state or using violence.
bscphil 5y ago
> The state is the only authorized monopoly of violence and they should treat unproven and untrue as identical, and the only place where that decision is made is in a courtroom. This is completely wrong. If the state treated all accusations as untrue prior to conviction, they would not send armed men to haul you to prison, bar you from release unless you can bail yourself out (or sometimes not at all), and not have a prosecutor charge you with a crime. This is no petty distinction. In order to function in its judiciary role, the state in fact must distinguish between plausibly true accusations and not plausible accusations, and must treat certain plausibly true accusations as "unproven" but not untrue, and take steps to make sure the accused does not flee into another country or commit further crimes.

kergonath 5y ago

This is bonkers. We are innocent until proven guilty, not "unproven". Witness testimony on its own is circumstantial evidence in general. Witnesses are very unreliable.

Ensorceled 5y ago
We are innocent until proven guilty, I never disputed that. I'm saying the accusation, the witness testimony, is NOT assumed false, the accusation is simply unproven. If the jury/judge believes the testimony, they may convict on that testimony. Then the accused is proven guilty. That the accusation started off being false and then magically became true when when the jury believed it is the bonkers belief here. The fact that witness testimony is unreliable is a big part of WHY the accused is presumed innocent.

brigandish 5y ago

All criminal accusations need to be treated as unproven, of course, could not agree more. Also, all those accused of a crime (and those not!) need to be treated as innocent until they are proven guilty.