Starker on 16/12/2017 at 23:03
How am I trying to undermine the legal process? I have neither argued for vigilantism nor have I in any way indicated that the principle of presumption of innocence should be changed as far as courts are concerned. But it is also patently ridiculous to suggest that people should live their lives and form their opinions as if they were in a court of law. If you have been wronged by someone, you absolutely have the right to speak out, even if you don't want to or aren't able to take the person to court.
Also, the issue is not whether facts are easier to establish or not. The issue, as faetal pointed out, is that a woman is sooner believed when she says she has been robbed than when she says she has been raped.
Finally, neither I nor anyone else in this thread has suggested that the accusers should be blindly believed. All anyone has asked is that they should be taken seriously.
Kolya on 16/12/2017 at 23:04
Quote Posted by Kolya
Of course facts are much easier to establish if someone is holding a purse full of personally identifiable belongings than matters of consent where often one person's word stands against another's. But if we're not talking about a purse but just cash money, then yes, we do doubt alleged victims in the legal system.
And we have to. Because otherwise someone could just say about you: "This guy stole my money!" And we'd simply believe them. That's the alternative.
Kolya on 16/12/2017 at 23:12
You are arguing for vigilantism when you suggest that innocent until proven guilty should not be honored outside of court. There's really no other way to take this.
And the way you do it is that you make those internet accusations your own personal experience: "If you have been wronged by someone..."
Well you haven't been wronged by any of them, have you? You're just empathizing with the accusers very strongly.
Starker on 16/12/2017 at 23:16
This is why courts determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody is believed automatically. But anyone coming forth with an accusation should be taken seriously. That's my argument.
Also, actions have consequences even outside of court. If you masturbate in front of your colleagues, it is not vigilantism if people don't want to hire you any more.
Kolya on 16/12/2017 at 23:24
I agree that any accusation should be taken seriously.
Your masturbation case is not comparable to cases where one person's word stands against another's. And yeah, you should have to be sentenced for this before employers can use it against you. Otherwise it might as well be hearsay.
Do you want to lose your career because of hearsay?
Starker on 16/12/2017 at 23:25
Wait, when I say that innocent until proven guilty is not necessarily applicable outside of court, how am I arguing for vigilantism? If someone hurts your friend, you don't have to wait for a court decision to form an opinion of that person and maybe cut ties with them. That's what I'm saying. That doesn't mean you should take the punishment into your own hands.
Kolya on 16/12/2017 at 23:29
Again, you're making it your personal experience. Now it's not you but your friend. Whom you will obviously believe more than some stranger.
Kolya on 16/12/2017 at 23:31
Imagine two strangers fighting in the street and you have to find out who started it.
Starker on 16/12/2017 at 23:33
While a company cannot fire you without proof (such as testimony from your colleagues), nobody is obligated to hire you or to renew your contract.
Starker on 16/12/2017 at 23:34
Quote Posted by Kolya
Again, you're making it your personal experience. Now it's not you but your friend. Whom you will obviously believe more than some stranger.
But that's the point. We are not in a court of law. These are examples of how we don't live our lives as if we were in a courtroom.
