This is a brilliant response. I definitely understand the point. But my point isn’t about protecting men. It’s the fact that you are automatically guilty by extension if you disappear from sight the second an allegation comes in.
I appeciate it looks my point is being black and white: rape or malicious accusation. But I definitely accept there is a middle ground whereby someone may not know if they have been assaulted or not, and should be encouraged to report something, but again, in my mind, if we are to be widening the debate around assault and encouraging people to (correctly) come forward even if not sure, this strengthens the need to allow the law to handle it, not the public kangaroo court of social justice. The second someone is taken out of the limelight for this they are guilty, irrespective of the legal side of it. People stand to lose a lot when completely innocent.
I know what you mean in teams of the statistics and don’t refute the facts at all and agree with regarding the point about it being more likely that a woman isn’t lying than is, but for me, that’s still not grounds to essentially make anyone alleged against guilty by extension. It’s just not OK.
The crux of the issue in handling sexual assault allegations, especially among high-profile individuals, is our societal stance on due process.
We face a clear choice: either we fully uphold the principles of due process, including the presumption of innocence, or we do not.
In cases where due process is disregarded, accused individuals are left in a precarious position. Even if legally cleared, their reputations often remain tarnished.
Public opinion, questioning the legal verdict, effectively brands them as guilty indefinitely. This creates a troubling scenario where once accused, they are perceived as forever guilty, with no clear path to restore their reputation.
This is a brilliant response. I definitely understand the point. But my point isn’t about protecting men. It’s the fact that you are automatically guilty by extension if you disappear from sight the second an allegation comes in.
I appeciate it looks my point is being black and white: rape or malicious accusation. But I definitely accept there is a middle ground whereby someone may not know if they have been assaulted or not, and should be encouraged to report something, but again, in my mind, if we are to be widening the debate around assault and encouraging people to (correctly) come forward even if not sure, this strengthens the need to allow the law to handle it, not the public kangaroo court of social justice. The second someone is taken out of the limelight for this they are guilty, irrespective of the legal side of it. People stand to lose a lot when completely innocent.
I know what you mean in teams of the statistics and don’t refute the facts at all and agree with regarding the point about it being more likely that a woman isn’t lying than is, but for me, that’s still not grounds to essentially make anyone alleged against guilty by extension. It’s just not OK.
The crux of the issue in handling sexual assault allegations, especially among high-profile individuals, is our societal stance on due process.
We face a clear choice: either we fully uphold the principles of due process, including the presumption of innocence, or we do not.
In cases where due process is disregarded, accused individuals are left in a precarious position. Even if legally cleared, their reputations often remain tarnished.
Public opinion, questioning the legal verdict, effectively brands them as guilty indefinitely. This creates a troubling scenario where once accused, they are perceived as forever guilty, with no clear path to restore their reputation.