catbarf on 22/12/2017 at 16:21
I get where you're coming from, icemann, but I feel like if that policy were in place we wouldn't be seeing this kind of shakeup of Hollywood. A lot of the accusations against Weinstein, Spacey and others over events that happened years or decades ago wouldn't have come out if they had to be backed up with enough evidence to go to court.
As well, that does sound rather like 'shut up unless you have proof', and it's inconsistent with how other crimes are treated. I can say Kevin Spacey drunkenly attacked me thirty years ago, but I can't say Kevin Spacey drunkenly assaulted me thirty years ago?
I might be misinterpreting your post if you meant this only applies to cases going to court, and otherwise public allegations are fair game, but then we still have the question of how we treat those allegations that won't go to court and can't be proven or disproven.
Starker on 22/12/2017 at 17:20
Catbarf, I think you are possibly misunderstanding where faetal and heywood and I are coming from. We are not talking about changing legal standards, we are talking about how things are handled outside of the courts.
In any case, Christmas break?
icemann on 22/12/2017 at 17:54
My reply was solely for cases where it's going to court. Hence the bit about judges etc.
It's been quite common for the media to leak news about cases being taken to court and naming the accused. Thus potential prejudices being formed prior or during a case, which can lead to retrials etc etc.
For when it's not being taken to court I'm not sure what the best solution would be.
Renzatic on 22/12/2017 at 18:00
Quote Posted by icemann
Aye. I've practically never yelled at anyone in this place. Well once I told off a guy who made a racist comment about Aussies. But that's about it for me really.
*shakes fist*
Aussies are just English people with bad sunburns, surrounded by weird plants and animals that want to kill them. Don't know how anyone could hate on that.
icemann on 22/12/2017 at 18:21
This was many years ago, and in the level editing forum of all places, which is the last place on here you'd expect to come across it. Can't even remember the person's username, it was that long ago.
SubJeff on 22/12/2017 at 18:25
Quote Posted by faetal
Giving every guy benefit of the doubt on innocence is fucking over the 88-98% of assaulted women in order to protect 2-12% of men
No, it's just treating people equally.
Quote:
Favouring the accused is flipping the coin and taking the less likely option, for the ultimate purpose of achieving what exactly?
No one is talking about favouring the accused. You've made this statement more than once. Its a pure strawman.
Quote:
Also, at the risk of being a repetitive bore - why are women less likely to believe when claiming rape versus robbery?
Because culturally and socially rape is seen as a far more repugnant crime, and it is. Therefore it's very important to be sure there is a case to be heard.
Quote Posted by faetal
I don't think calling out for even more scrutiny and "believe the man first" tactics is a benign move here
No one has said that should happen.
Quote:
I also think that saying "shut up unless you have proof" hurts 88-98% of the abused, to protect 2%-12% of the accused.
No is saying that should be said.
And for your delectation and delight, two more recent cases of calculated falsehoods by women with intent.
(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42453405)
(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42441745)
And we don't know the women's names, despite them both being found to be liars.
Equity?
catbarf on 22/12/2017 at 19:49
Quote Posted by Starker
Catbarf, I think you are possibly misunderstanding where faetal and heywood and I are coming from. We are not talking about changing legal standards, we are talking about how things are handled outside of the courts.
I know. I'm saying that dispensing justice outside the courts, the institution we normally delegate that task to, is at best mob justice. And I don't buy 'it's right more often than it's wrong' as a valid argument for mob justice, or a justification for hurting innocent people who, through the actual justice system, would be protected by due process.
I've been trying to stay objective and talk in matters of principle, but this gets me worked up because it happened to someone I knew from high school. Bogus abuse claim, full of holes and would never have held up in court, but in the local court of public opinion it was enough to ruin his life and he killed himself this past March, jobless and unable to pay mounting debt. So I'm not going to be seeing him this Christmas. What am I supposed to take from that? 'Sucks to be him- now let's empower accusers so it happens more often, and trust it'll happen more to guilty people'?
My fiancee was sexually assaulted at a college internship. She was pressured not to report by a local police officer who second-guessed her story because there was alcohol at the party where she got groped. That is fucking infuriating, and I will always support taking accusations seriously, because nobody should be treated like a liar just because they made an accusation. Innocent until proven guilty goes for the accuser as much as the accused, and I think everyone is entitled to speak in public regardless of whether they have actionable evidence or not.
But it seems like as soon as I say I don't want the public reading bullet point hearsay and taking matters into their own hands, suddenly I'm a misogynist trying to create a safe space for rapists and silence victims. Can't win.
SubJeff on 22/12/2017 at 21:18
Quote Posted by catbarf
I know. I'm saying that dispensing justice outside the courts, the institution we normally delegate that task to, is at best mob justice. And I don't buy 'it's right more often than it's wrong' as a valid argument for mob justice, or a justification for hurting innocent people who, through the actual justice system, would be protected by due process.
Word.
Quote:
I will always support taking accusations seriously, because nobody should be treated like a liar just because they made an accusation. Innocent until proven guilty goes for the accuser as much as the accused, and I think everyone is entitled to speak in public regardless of whether they have actionable evidence or not.
Yep.
Quote:
But it seems like as soon as I say I don't want the public reading bullet point hearsay and taking matters into their own hands, suddenly I'm a misogynist trying to create a safe space for rapists and silence victims. Can't win.
That's how they do. That is exactly how they do.
I know people who've been falsely accused too. Things like that really stay with you. I know someone who talked to a girl at an evening beach party and then went on to a pub on the other side of town. The girl drank too much, was assaulted, found crying in a state of undress and uttered his name - there was no way he could have done it. Cue a mob hunting him across town and the police searching for him. False claims can be devastating.
(
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-prevalence-of-false-allegations-of-rape-in-the-united-states-from-20062010-2475-319X-1000119.pdf) Oh, and you may all like to read this.
"Approximately 5% of the allegations of rape were deemed false or baseless. That was at least five times higher than for most other offence types."
But I guess if it doesn't fit your narrative feel free to discard it/class it as misogyny/men ruling the system or whatever, broflakes.
Starker on 22/12/2017 at 23:39
Catbarf, nobody here has encouraged vigilantism or taking justice into your own hands. And yes, false claims are terrible for both the real victims as well as the innocently accused. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage women to speak out about their abuse.
Quote:
What am I supposed to take from that? 'Sucks to be him- now let's empower accusers so it happens more often, and trust it'll happen more to guilty people'?
Do you think accusers should not be empowered or that they should even be actively discouraged, if it meant less false accusations?
We are not saying that every accuser should be blindly believed or that justice should be meted out automatically and without listening to the accused. What we are saying is that women who speak out in public should not be held to the standards of criminal prosecution outside of court. Do you disagree with that?
catbarf on 23/12/2017 at 02:16
I think I've said in every post so far that I believe women should be encouraged to speak out, without needing evidence to be allowed to speak, and without being assumed to be liars, so I'm not sure why you're asking me my position on things I've explicitly stated several times now.
Everybody should be empowered to speak and be taken seriously, even if they don't have anything concrete to back up their statements, and be assumed to be telling the truth until proven otherwise. Nobody should have their life ruined by unproven claims (ie punishment meted out externally to the justice system, ie vigilantism/mob justice). You tell me if that's holding women to the standards of criminal prosecution or not.
