2 ms·

In other words "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply when we sympathise with the victim? Bullshit. Sexual abuse is a horrible crime and that it is so d

by pluma 12y ago

In other words "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply when we sympathise with the victim? Bullshit. Sexual abuse is a horrible crime and that it is so difficult to prove makes it only worse, but although we should take allegations seriously, they're just that: allegations, not a verdict or judgement. If we condemn alleged criminals based on allegations alone, we might as well just start lynching people again. Taking an alleged victim serious is not the same as treating allegations as undisputed fact. It means assuming they're honest and not just seeking dramatic effect. The reason banning him from the event was inappropriate was not that the victim hadn't pressed charges or wasn't credible. It's that the alleged rape took place a decade ago and the outrage calling for his ban was entirely based on hearsay (essentially "someone called this guy a rapist, so you should treat him as a convicted sexual predator").

akerl_ 12y ago
This. Accusations should be taken seriously. Taking them seriously means investigating them, it means not blaming or shaming the accuser, and fixing the serious flaws in how our legal system manages to do the aforementioned things. The goal here is that the legal system should be a safe and effective vessel for identifying valid accusations and punishing offenders, not that the accusations should be turned by society into a verdict.
nyolfen 12y ago
'innocent until proven guilty' is a legal principle, not a social one. i'll err on the side of a victim any day of the week if there's not a very compelling reason not to
- pluma 12y ago
  Sure, you can do that, as long as you don't take direct actions (i.e. any form of vigilantism, including making the accusations any more public than necessary to press charges) against the accused based on that sympathy. Just look at the development of the Rolling Stone rape story[0] for an example of why it's a bad idea to take direct action against someone based merely on accusations. Rape, just like child abuse, is such a terrible crime that in our society mere allegations are treated as fact -- even when they are proven false and even when a trial establishes innocence (not simply reasonable doubt). Heck, the social effects are so dire, the social punishment can last for a lifetime, regardless of the actual sentence. It's never justified to risk ruining an innocent person's life. This is why we grant the state the monopoly of violence: because any individual is far too emotional, irrational and unreliable to be trusted with taking matters into their own hands. [0]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternit...
  - nyolfen 12y ago
    there is no reason to assume the role of the aggressors in the rolling stone case; you're buying into the defense's proposition with no reason outside of being a dude. besides that you're going with 'women are emotional and unreliable' on a goddamn whim exactly how they want you to be played, because you can't break out of gender stereotypes

by pluma 12y ago

akerl_ 12y ago

This. Accusations should be taken seriously. Taking them seriously means investigating them, it means not blaming or shaming the accuser, and fixing the serious flaws in how our legal system manages to do the aforementioned things. The goal here is that the legal system should be a safe and effective vessel for identifying valid accusations and punishing offenders, not that the accusations should be turned by society into a verdict.

nyolfen 12y ago

'innocent until proven guilty' is a legal principle, not a social one. i'll err on the side of a victim any day of the week if there's not a very compelling reason not to

pluma 12y ago
Sure, you can do that, as long as you don't take direct actions (i.e. any form of vigilantism, including making the accusations any more public than necessary to press charges) against the accused based on that sympathy. Just look at the development of the Rolling Stone rape story[0] for an example of why it's a bad idea to take direct action against someone based merely on accusations. Rape, just like child abuse, is such a terrible crime that in our society mere allegations are treated as fact -- even when they are proven false and even when a trial establishes innocence (not simply reasonable doubt). Heck, the social effects are so dire, the social punishment can last for a lifetime, regardless of the actual sentence. It's never justified to risk ruining an innocent person's life. This is why we grant the state the monopoly of violence: because any individual is far too emotional, irrational and unreliable to be trusted with taking matters into their own hands. [0]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternit...
- nyolfen 12y ago
  there is no reason to assume the role of the aggressors in the rolling stone case; you're buying into the defense's proposition with no reason outside of being a dude. besides that you're going with 'women are emotional and unreliable' on a goddamn whim exactly how they want you to be played, because you can't break out of gender stereotypes