4 ms·
Not permitting the accused to know what they are being accused of is always done in bad faith. If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the vic
by cld8483 4y ago
Not permitting the accused to know what they are being accused of is always done in bad faith.
If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is, so hiding the accuser does nothing. Hiding the accuser is only ""useful"" when the accused is actually innocent. The entire point of hiding the accuser is to deny the wrongfully accused of the opportunity to defend themselves. Such systems are weapons created by and for bureaucrats to cement their power.
- erosenbe0 4y agoMostly true. Though certain property crimes or conduct violations such as vandalism, ripping down flags, graffiti, and the like might just have the institution itself as the complainant.
- rebeccaskinner 4y ago> If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is That’s only true if the accused knows the potential accusers and there is a small enough number of potential accusers that it could be reasonably narrowed down.
- kneebonian 4y agoThen maybe I go a step farther if the violation I commit is so innocuous as to be incapable of identifying a pool of possible victims of this violation; unless the victim themselves self selects to report that they were harmed by the violation. Doesn't that indicate that maybe I didn't actually do anything that bad?
- Clubber 4y agoThat's a really good point. The only counter would be the Catholic Church child molestation scandal. There were so many victims, I think hiding the accuser would have value. I admit that is an extreme circumstance.