SubJeff on 15/12/2017 at 19:48
In the background of the #metoo movement and the outing of all these sex offenders, there are a core of people (myself included) that still believe in "innocent until proven guilty".
Here is a case that I find absolutely ridiculous:
(
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/15/scotland-yard-carrying-out-urgent-assessment-after-trial-collapses)
TLDR: Man accused of 12 counts of rape and sexual assault found innocent after the police finally viewed the text messages he said they should view, 2 years after the fact.
Of course in the eyes of idiots like our own SD, 12 counts would be enough to paint this guy as guilty.
I'm wondering if this woman will face trial. She should, imho.
SD on 16/12/2017 at 00:14
You're the only idiot here, pal.
faetal on 16/12/2017 at 00:47
How are you linking the #metoo movement to this one case reported in the Guardian?
Is there information contained in this case which somehow discredits the scores of people reporting their sexual assault experiences?
Is the central message here that women should shut up about their assaults unless they have enough evidence to prosecute?
icemann on 16/12/2017 at 05:42
I'd love to debate why having a "innocent before being proven guilty" stance on all crimes should always be the case, especially with the "metoo" movement, but after the thread got hijacked and taken in a more extreme direction toward the victims, it was impossible to have a valid debate after that. So that's left me a bit jaded. I love a good debate, so that was very annoying. You can't have a valid debate once emotions get involved. People just start exploding with anger and there is no way to have a logical debate from then on.
All I'll say is that everyone deserves the right to be viewed as innocent before being proven otherwise. I believe in that very strongly. The problem is that the majority of people get into a mob / witch hunt mentality whenever a murderer is accused, person accused of rape etc etc. Often there isn't even a shred of evidence, being hearsay or just the words of one individual which are often impossible to prove one way or the other, but that does not matter to the mob of angry people who yell "OFF WITH THIS HEAD". Half the time those accused are later proven to have been innocent, but the damage is already done. Either the persons life is COMPLETELY ruined and is never the same afterward, or the person commits suicide, or like in the above example, the police themselves are guilty of not considering a person innocent and put them in jail for x amount of years before the truth was revealed. Where is the justice in that?
That is why I feel so strongly on this.
The other problem you get is that some people believe that the right of the victim (whether or not they actually were or not) is more important than that of the accused. Well if you go down that road then everyone is guilty before being proven otherwise. So no thanks.
Yakoob on 16/12/2017 at 06:19
Quote Posted by faetal
How are you linking the #metoo movement to this one case reported in the Guardian?
Is there information contained in this case which somehow discredits the scores of people reporting their sexual assault experiences?
Is the central message here that women should shut up about their assaults unless they have enough evidence to prosecute?
I think his point is: "let's hold off on chastising until after they are convicted." The case show's that the person was blamed by 12 women, and in the end, it turned out it was not true. All the celebs are already getting so much crap. Harvey Weinstein's career is ruined for example. What if it turns out he is actually innocent, like in the article linked?
(that is highly unlikely, but illustrating the point).
Vasquez on 16/12/2017 at 06:51
Quote Posted by faetal
How are you linking the #metoo movement to this one case reported in the Guardian?
I'd like to ask the same. Grabbing tits or jerking off in front of others is not a crime, it's just really, really bad and idiotic behaviour. If you do it enough, it won't stay a secret forever, and so your social stupidity returns to bite you in the ass in the form of social punishment.
Pyrian on 16/12/2017 at 07:43
Quote Posted by Yakoob
The case show's that the person was blamed by 12 women...
Heheheh. 12
counts. One complainant. SubJeff is trying to equate distinct concepts, and you just fell for one of his deceptions. Icemann can complain about emotional responses, but the fact is this thread was started with SubJeff's usual brazenly dishonest style (conflating a dozen charges with a dozen witnesses, nevermind the underlying conflation of personal and business decisions with criminal justice principles).
EDIT: I distrust the motivation of anybody who's deeply concerned about Weinstein getting blacklisted from his career without a criminal conviction but don't express the slightest concern about the now-corroborated fact that several of his victims were blacklisted from their careers on his behalf, obviously also without any criminal conviction. Insofar as people are getting unjustly blacklisted, the shoe is very much on the accusers' feet. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.
EDIT 2: I think there are very good conversations to be had (albeit not with SubJeff) about how industry power can be oppressive in ways normally associated with government power. But defending Weinstein et al is IMO not the place to do it.
Starker on 16/12/2017 at 08:58
Innocent before proven guilty is a concept for crimes tried in a court. It means that it's up to the prosecution to prove a person's guilt and not up to the person to prove their innocence. It doesn't mean that the person is innocent, it just means that only the person's guilt is determined at court. Obviously, this doesn't apply to life outside of a courtroom. Someone who has been molesting women does not have to be treated as if he was completely innocent, even if what he's doing isn't legally a crime. If 8 unrelated people say your babysitter has mistreated their children, you do not have to hire that babysitter, even if there hasn't been a conviction. If your friend says that someone you know stole from them, you do not have to wait for a court decision to keep an eye on your valuables when that person is visiting.
So, maybe there's a remote chance that Weinstein is innocent, despite all the evidence to the contrary. But if that's the standard, that means that nobody can be treated as guilty, because courts make mistakes too.
And yes, false rape accusations do rarely happen, but not "half of the time" as suggested above. And that's for the courts to sort out. But that's not the issue with the case in the Guardian. From what I gather, the case fell apart because police had certain messages from the woman's mobile phone, but didn't hand them over to the prosecution and defence teams until the trial was already close at hand. These messages, where the woman described enjoying sex with the man and having rape fantasies, made the conviction very unlikely to happen and so the prosecution dropped the case.
Finally, why is it with allegations of sexual assault that the fantasies run wild and people start to imagine hordes of women maliciously trying to ruin mens lives? There is no reason to believe that these kinds of false allegations are any more prevalent than the false allegations of other kinds of crimes.
Kolya on 16/12/2017 at 09:27
Maybe because women are people. And whatever your general view of people may be, we don't give anyone else the chance to destroy someone's life without checking the facts, solely relying on good faith not to do the wrong thing.
Conor Oberst was accused of rape ffs. If that doesn't prove it can hit anyone then I don't know what does.
Vasquez on 16/12/2017 at 09:44
Quote Posted by Starker
Finally, why is it with allegations of sexual assault that the fantasies run wild and people start to imagine hordes of women maliciously trying to ruin mens lives?
Because ALL WOMEN SECRETLY HATE MEN AND ENVY THEIR PENISES :rolleyes:
Edit. And there's no doubt whatsoever in Weinstein's case concerning harrassment, he has admitted it himself.