Yes, just like rape accusations. It doesn't matter that you prove it was false afterwards.
Edit : well that was a hint to Assange of course. Probably not true in general. So yes, I mean false accusations.
Edit : well that was a hint to Assange of course. Probably not true in general. So yes, I mean false accusations.
this is not how the concept of accusation works
And besides the "victim" in the latter case there was a whole lot of diplomatic pressure and political commotion to set him up, with carrots and sticks and the aid of friendly satellite states.
Normal humans are not required to prove anything in order to think them.
No, but decent human beings are required to not think them true just because they're out there...
this is true whether you believe or disbelieve a rape claim, because if you disbelieve it you typically must believe the corrolary that the victim was committing the crime of lying to the police.
And even if it didn't hold in my country, it's still a tenet I think is fair.
So, I didn't intended invoke what's the legal requirements, but what should be the "right" thing (and what I think should also be legally mandated, even if it's not).
I respect this ethical claim; however, there is considerable variation in how legal systems operate in this domain.
I also think that those downvoting you might've applied the principle of charity and taken the best interpretation of what you've written or at least ask.
This is a fundamental tenet of human rights in western, small-l liberal free societies.
The fact that this is controversial these days is literally insane to me.
The consequences of throwing this fundamental system out the window is that you get the sort of nonsense that happened with Assange, where he was literally never even charged yet completely and thoroughly discredited due to headlines containing the word "rape" when no such thing ever happened.
(If you have been misled to believe otherwise, I encourage you to read the direct statements of the women involved.)
No, they need to be treated as unproven, a very critical difference.
Just to be clear, witness testimony, including testimony FROM THE VICTIM, is evidence of the crime. Just for some reason, in rape cases, we go all wonky with this principle.
There is a reason the verdict is "not guilty" instead of "innocent". After a not guilty verdict the legal system still does not assume the accuser was making a false accusation.
Both verdicts exists, actually; the latter one is just far rarer (since it is both harder to prove and usually not what is argued about).
Ironically, a provable case of false rape accusation might result in this verdict.
Sorry, it needs to be said. It's easier to take one side of an argument when it's less likely to affect you personally.
This is why due process is important.
No doubt some are false, but have not seen any evidence suggesting the majority are false.
That's also not what I was trying to say. I only explained why testimony is far more doubted in rape cases than in most other cases. In general, I agree with you that accusations should be treated as unproven, so neither false nor true; we have a justice system to give a final verdict.
Right. I have a jar of gumballs and tell you I think there is an even number of gumballs in it. Do you believe me? If you don't, does that mean you believe there are in fact an odd number of gumballs in it? No, you do not believe either that there are an odd or an even number, because you just don't know. For a criminal accusation , your initial belief should not be guilty or innocent, it should be, "I just don't know".
EDIT: judging by the downvotes, they are also making the leap to the original gumball counter must be lying ...
In a criminal trial:
Victim: This person did it
Defendant: No I didn't
Not guilty
2. The state is the only authorized monopoly of violence and they should treat unproven and untrue as identical, and the only place where that decision is made is in a courtroom.
3. The 'believe the victims' activists however are rightfully (IMHO) suggesting to break principle #2 because there is institutional and systemic supression of the rule of law being applied properly. I would consider this civil disobedience.
4. The state needs to get it's act together and administer the law properly. Only through reform can they regain the legitimacy that is required for #2.
5. Those reforms should focus on racism, sexism and classism. It should focus on what part of the law is too ambiguous for either law enforcement and the judiciary branch.
6. This might include actually blinding the court, i.e. offer only verifiable facts that are admissable and can not be utilized as widgets for race, gender or social economic positions.
If you don't think the legal system has a problem ask yourself why every lawyer recommends the defendant to wear a suit to court. How could it matter if the process was assumed to be without bias.
The problematic part is that sexual harassment is a crime though. Both the act and accusation warrant court. Not to fire someone from their job, but to prosecute them under criminal law.
This is completely wrong. If the state treated all accusations as untrue prior to conviction, they would not send armed men to haul you to prison, bar you from release unless you can bail yourself out (or sometimes not at all), and not have a prosecutor charge you with a crime.
This is no petty distinction. In order to function in its judiciary role, the state in fact must distinguish between plausibly true accusations and not plausible accusations, and must treat certain plausibly true accusations as "unproven" but not untrue, and take steps to make sure the accused does not flee into another country or commit further crimes.
Although arresting and jailing someone is not being justice being administered, it is facilitating justice and fact finding and it itself is indeed an act of violence.
In between golden principles and everyday court are a lot of pragmatic laws and regulations. That is where I would like to see reform. To help the system full fill it's ideals and principles, especially the blindness of the justice.
Witness testimony on its own is circumstantial evidence in general. Witnesses are very unreliable.
I'm saying the accusation, the witness testimony, is NOT assumed false, the accusation is simply unproven.
If the jury/judge believes the testimony, they may convict on that testimony. Then the accused is proven guilty.
That the accusation started off being false and then magically became true when when the jury believed it is the bonkers belief here.
The fact that witness testimony is unreliable is a big part of WHY the accused is presumed innocent.
There are far too many people who assume/assert false accusations of rape are the norm for the principle of charity to apply here.
Which is pretty ironic, considering that kind of reaction is exactly what the comment is about.