We do, until the legal system gets involved z and the entire point of that legal system is that it can’t care if you’re male, female, trans, or not.
If someone accuses you of rape, they have to be able to prove it. I known this sucks. I also know that this is a situation that many times is a “he said she said” situation that cannot be proven, so yes, I also know that there are many rapists out there, walking amongst us, possibly waiting to strike again
I also know that that is the price that we (most western European democracies, the US is already on the rdge) pay for a system of law that does not primarily focuses on jailing the guilty, it primarily focuses on keeping the innocent out of jail.
And yes, that is a system that you want. The second that we’d have a system where we would always automatically believe the word of any random person, just and only because she is a woman, you’d better be careful with who you decide will be your girlfriend. Same goes in reverse.
I wish that’s how the legal system works but it does not. The way the legal system works is the wealthier you are the more innocent you are. The wealthier you are the more advantages you have. The wealthier you are the easier it is to crush anyone trying to get Justice from you. That’s the way our Justice system works. That’s the way it’s designed to work.
While yes, that still doesn’t mean we just believe every accusation. It just means we fix the justice system first and then do it properly. All that really needs to happen is that tax money pays for lawyers, and the rich party could pay for extra legal help, but it will go equally to both sides.
Well, unless you’re not white. Then the court will be very happy to sentence you based on the witness testimony alone. Self-admission of guilt taken after 14 straight hours of interrogation will also work.
Let’s make this thought experiment. Is someone raped ALL the people beside the judge. But did this all 1-by-1 without witnesses. And they all coming forward. Should the judge sentence him on the “testimony alone”?
It really feels like saying “no” would mean that the system is not working in a big way. Saying “yes” on other means that there is a number of people cumming forward that should be considered a credible evidence., right?
I’m not sure if you’re trying to argue with me or not from the general tone there?
Regardless, as much as it sucks: innocent until proven guilty means proven guilty. Sentencing on accusations alone seems like a really dark path to walk, even when many people are accusing.
That said, the effort put into finding evidence should certainly increase with the number of accusations made, and it’s well established that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict in many cases. Many accusations should mean many data points to validate against looking for credible evidence right?
But I’m not arguing “innocent until” part. I’m arguing what constitute “proven guilty”. Is there a number of testimonies that should be counted as proof?
You dogged the theoretical question. Is testimony of 100% people enough? Does at ANY point testimonies become more than "accusation alone?
(btw it’s not “until proven guilty” it’s “until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt”.)
It’s a question that is easy to pose and incredibly difficult to solve (if not actually impossible to solve). Which is why the world’s collective judicial systems are struggling with it and have been struggling with it since the invention of judicial systems.
Ideally, courts should be able to convict every single guilty person while letting every single innocent person walk free. We also want all victims compensated fairly for the wrong that had been done unto them, while we want all scammers to get nothing.
The problem here is that we don’t know everything and that circumstances differ, so that a solid binary yes-or-no decision is hard to make.
More evidence (and victim testimonies are evidence) helps for sure, but then again context needs to be taken into consideration.
If everyone says he did it, that’s strong evidence. On the other hand there have been more than enough victims of wrongful mob “justice” as well (look up for example Drachenlord if you want a recent and really shocking one).
And of course, if money’s on the table and it’s a very famous person, the chances of someone just jumping on the bandwagon to score some easy money are not zero either.
On the other side, a large majority of legitimate rape cases have nothing but the testimony of a single victim.
All in all it would be disingenuous to put up a single number (even if this is 99%) of victim testimonies that should be enough for an automatic conviction or acquittal. And it’s also unrealistic to expect a flawless conviction/acquittal record.
It’s always a balance between convicting innocent people and acquitting dangerous criminals. And the balance needs to be somewhere and it’s always wrong for the individuals who didn’t get justice.
We do, until the legal system gets involved z and the entire point of that legal system is that it can’t care if you’re male, female, trans, or not.
If someone accuses you of rape, they have to be able to prove it. I known this sucks. I also know that this is a situation that many times is a “he said she said” situation that cannot be proven, so yes, I also know that there are many rapists out there, walking amongst us, possibly waiting to strike again
I also know that that is the price that we (most western European democracies, the US is already on the rdge) pay for a system of law that does not primarily focuses on jailing the guilty, it primarily focuses on keeping the innocent out of jail.
And yes, that is a system that you want. The second that we’d have a system where we would always automatically believe the word of any random person, just and only because she is a woman, you’d better be careful with who you decide will be your girlfriend. Same goes in reverse.
I wish that’s how the legal system works but it does not. The way the legal system works is the wealthier you are the more innocent you are. The wealthier you are the more advantages you have. The wealthier you are the easier it is to crush anyone trying to get Justice from you. That’s the way our Justice system works. That’s the way it’s designed to work.
While yes, that still doesn’t mean we just believe every accusation. It just means we fix the justice system first and then do it properly. All that really needs to happen is that tax money pays for lawyers, and the rich party could pay for extra legal help, but it will go equally to both sides.
Innocent till proven broke.
Kinda like a financial witch trial except that surviving it exhonerates you.
Well, unless you’re not white. Then the court will be very happy to sentence you based on the witness testimony alone. Self-admission of guilt taken after 14 straight hours of interrogation will also work.
Yep, all of which is wrong.
Let’s make this thought experiment. Is someone raped ALL the people beside the judge. But did this all 1-by-1 without witnesses. And they all coming forward. Should the judge sentence him on the “testimony alone”?
It really feels like saying “no” would mean that the system is not working in a big way. Saying “yes” on other means that there is a number of people cumming forward that should be considered a credible evidence., right?
I’m not sure if you’re trying to argue with me or not from the general tone there?
Regardless, as much as it sucks: innocent until proven guilty means proven guilty. Sentencing on accusations alone seems like a really dark path to walk, even when many people are accusing.
That said, the effort put into finding evidence should certainly increase with the number of accusations made, and it’s well established that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict in many cases. Many accusations should mean many data points to validate against looking for credible evidence right?
But I’m not arguing “innocent until” part. I’m arguing what constitute “proven guilty”. Is there a number of testimonies that should be counted as proof?
You dogged the theoretical question. Is testimony of 100% people enough? Does at ANY point testimonies become more than "accusation alone?
(btw it’s not “until proven guilty” it’s “until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt”.)
It’s a question that is easy to pose and incredibly difficult to solve (if not actually impossible to solve). Which is why the world’s collective judicial systems are struggling with it and have been struggling with it since the invention of judicial systems.
Ideally, courts should be able to convict every single guilty person while letting every single innocent person walk free. We also want all victims compensated fairly for the wrong that had been done unto them, while we want all scammers to get nothing.
The problem here is that we don’t know everything and that circumstances differ, so that a solid binary yes-or-no decision is hard to make.
More evidence (and victim testimonies are evidence) helps for sure, but then again context needs to be taken into consideration.
If everyone says he did it, that’s strong evidence. On the other hand there have been more than enough victims of wrongful mob “justice” as well (look up for example Drachenlord if you want a recent and really shocking one).
And of course, if money’s on the table and it’s a very famous person, the chances of someone just jumping on the bandwagon to score some easy money are not zero either.
On the other side, a large majority of legitimate rape cases have nothing but the testimony of a single victim.
All in all it would be disingenuous to put up a single number (even if this is 99%) of victim testimonies that should be enough for an automatic conviction or acquittal. And it’s also unrealistic to expect a flawless conviction/acquittal record.
It’s always a balance between convicting innocent people and acquitting dangerous criminals. And the balance needs to be somewhere and it’s always wrong for the individuals who didn’t get justice.
I didn’t dodge your question, I answered it directly in saying that convicting on accusations alone is a dark path.
There is no number of accusations made that should be considered “proof” of anything.
But, every accusation should be taken seriously and investigated objectively.
(Btw, the salient part of that in relation to this conversation is “proven” not “reasonable doubt”)
Then all you’d need is collusion between a sufficient number of people to get someone you don’t like convicted of any crime.
Well, isn’t this always true to the degree?