2 ms·

'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 rea

• 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