View original postThere is of course a range of opinions, and no doubt you may find some people who are upset enough about the prevalence of sexual assault and rape that they embrace strong rhetoric about, basically, assuming the accused party to be guilty until proven innocent. But it's still a very big step from such rhetoric to actually supporting the use of such standards in the criminal justice system, which would be blatantly illegal and unacceptable by the standards of the US or any other western nation.
See...we can see from the latest big instance that it was far,
far more than strong rhetoric. It was flat out "the accusation is proof enough". And then God forbid he get upset about it, that just proves it even more.
View original postHowever, I think I'm right in saying that for most people who embrace MeToo or BelieveAllWomen, the first priority is actually to change the way the accuser herself is treated in so many cases. Making sure that her complaint is taken seriously, that she is treated with respect and given a chance to talk about her experiences, knowing that memories from years ago are bound to be imperfect on some of the details. Hearing her out with an open mind and without trying to disprove the accusation the second some apparent discrepancy appears. In some cases, depending on who the accusations are against and how much media attention they get, protecting her from the waves of online abuse, trolling, doxxing, death threats that will inevitably follow.
I'm not totally sure I agree with you. I see it far more that both movements want the accuser's word to start as the baseline of "truth" and work back from there to establish innocence. You have to admit that it appears that way. "Believe all Women" right from the title pretty much says that. It's not #TruthofAssault or #DidntConsent. It's #BelieveAllWomen regardless if I have anything to back it up.
And then as you mention, when it comes down to just her memories, and people hearing her out....what else are people supposed to do with the inconsistencies? Just let them pass without bringing it up? If that's all she has to go on, then that's all anyone has to go on.
All the media abuse, trolling and such happens. And it's horrible. Let's also remember that it happens to both, and the percentage of retribution is not the same. She can call herself a survivor. He's the accused rapist.
View original postNone of those things would increase the risk of convicting someone who is wrongfully accused, since that requires actual proof. Sure, a person who is wrongfully accused would still suffer damage to their reputation, but then they could sue for libel or slander, if the accusation turns out in hindsight to have been intentionally false. Even so, I agree they might suffer permanent negative consequences in their social life, but then, so would the people falsely accused of any other crime who are found innocent - and, of course, the people who make accusations of sexual assault or rape that are widely disbelieved.
So then Kavanaugh should be able to sue those women? His reputation was certainly damaged...permanently so. Her accusation served absolutely no purpose other than to try and derail his job promotion. The statute of limitations to make it an actual crime has long since past. She had no proof. She had no witnesses. She had no corroboration of any kind. All she had was a 36 year old memory which demonstrated inconsistencies. So he should sue?
View original postIn the end it becomes a numbers game, what the greater risk is. If you somehow believe that the majority of sexual assault or rape accusations are plain false or wildly exaggerated, then it's normal enough that you are more concerned with the rights of the falsely accused than with ensuring that accusers are listened to in good faith. But all the evidence points the other way - that only a small minority of actual guilty people are convicted in the end, while intentionally false accusations are rare (though inevitably given a lot of attention whenever they occur).
Which is why I brought up the original thought....if it is just a numbers game that 10 guilty men should go free to protect 1 innocent, than why the disparity with this movement?
Rape & Sexual Assault are very difficult to prosecute, because it often comes down to a Person 1 vs. Person 2. Even with physical evidence, it can be "They consented" while the other says "No, I didn't." Which comes back around to one person's word vs. the other. This then devolves into examining every little detail of everything that someone says to look for inconsistencies or embellishments. If the movement's main goal is to change that, then what do we go to?
~Jeordam