Well, you can give up now. You are way too boring to drag me into anything.
Everyone calm down right now.
No more.
So if you are changing your initial statement to say that society doesn’t treat wealthy and influential accused poorly, then I guess that’s fine but it really makes your statement pretty fucking obvious. Wealthy influential murderers don’t typically get treated very poorly either.
But that is a very different statement than saying that you just don’t care about how society treats accused people. We have several constitutional amendment and a long history of jurisprudence that was developed because of people with your attitude towards the accused.
That’s not what you said. You said: “I’m not really concerned about changing the way society treats accused people, since society generally supports and defends powerful men accused of sexual assault. The exceptions are extremely rare.”
Now it seems like you are dialing back your ridiculous statement to one that is slightly less ridiculous but still pretty hard to justify.
It seems like you are amending your initial statement to say: I’m not really concerned about changing the way society treats wealthy/influential accused people, since society generally supports and defends powerful men accused of sexual assault. The exceptions are extremely rare.
So we owe no duty of fairness to wealthy people? At what point is someone wealthy/influential? At what point do they lose the presumption of innocence and the benefits of due process?
This is a dumb and boring disagreement.
I think that every time I hear about a sexual assault case, past , present or future so it really isn’t just pool that thinks this.
If they do not go to the police when it happens, it makes it incredibly hard to “investigate” like iiiandyiii would like.
At the end of the day, most all of the allegation(s) that get investigated 5, 10, 27 years later is going to come down to hearsay but hey at least we got that “investigation”!
By all means, investigate. What you shouldn’t do during the investigation (a quiet OUT OF THE PUBLIC ONE) is smear the accused.
But most folks on board with the investigation (iiiandyiii) don’t give a rats ass about the accused, only the accuser.
Well, because false accusations don’t really hurt, and it happens so infrequently and all that jazz.
Don’t be silly, only women care about this stuff - male politicians only pretend to so they can get the female vote! /RepublicanProjectionism
Do you think that a crime like sexual assault is qualitatively different from a crime like physical assault? Why or why not?
Can you imagine a scenario in which a victim of sexual assault may not come forward to report the crime in a timely manner? What might those circumstances look like?
Is there a window of time after which a victim should/may not come forward? What is that time frame in your opinion?
What are some of the reasons that compel a sexual assault victim to finally come forward with their accusation?
I can imagine lots of scenarios that would make it unlikely or even possibly harmful for the accuser to come forward. However, my issue isn’t with them not coming forward in a timely manner. My issue is what the Metoo movement has turned the public into.
Believe the accuser. check!
Perform investigation. check!
When investigation brings forth not enough credibility (and therefore fails in the eyes of the accuser and the eyes of those who believe them) smear the accused. check!
And this is clearly evidenced in the Kavanaugh hearing. People on this message board still regularly tout that Kavanaugh is guilty, shouldn’t be a judge etc etc
This hasn’t remotely occurred. It’s not even an accurate description of #MeToo, except for the “investigation” part.
Please enlighten me then.
I will state up front that I am uninterested in you establishing that I have the burden of proof here. The proof is all over the boards.
One (ok, maybe 2)question for YOU: Do YOU believe Kavanaugh is a sexual predator, and do you feel that it was proven?
For a very long time women were often not believed. So the inclination to change how society reacts is to the good, in my opinion. If there has been some over-reaction, that’s just society striking a new comfortable balance in their response.
Kavanaugh was as much about politics as about the alleged assault and MeToo. But even more than that, among his detractors, it was his general demeanor and unlike-able personality that really set people’s teeth on edge. I think he showed himself to be of unsuitable character for the position of a SCJ. But, “I think the guy is a jerk”, was not a justifiable reason to deny him this nomination. So people cleaved more closely to the belief that he was a sexual predator who got away with it.
I agree with this entire clarification. Where I would disagree is that it has to be this way. The #Metoo movement has been undeniably good, in theory. In practice, it could use some work.
Politics deserves the derision it gets when used this way.
#MeToo advocates that all accusations be taken seriously and investigated, and that accusers not be denigrated, insulted, or otherwise mistreated barring proof of dishonest or otherwise malicious actions. There is no single source for what #MeToo is and advocates for, but that is what almost every advocate and supporter that I’ve spoken to believes is the fundamental basis of #MeToo.
But no interest in answering the actual question posed, nor telling me how what I posted was wrong? (In the real world, that has real consequences)
RE: Kavanaugh – I think he probably is a sexual predator, but it’s obviously impossible to have any certainty. In addition to probably being a sexual predator, how he handled himself in the hearings demonstrated to me that he was wholly temperamentally unsuited to the SCOTUS (or indeed any position of leadership or political/legal office, IMO).
As for the “Check!” stuff you gave, that’s rarely happening out in the real world. Accusers are generally still not believed (and indeed are usually denigrated). Automatic belief isn’t necessary (and obviously isn’t happening), but refraining from mistreating accusers definitely is necessary, and it’s still happening. Investigations still aren’t happening nearly as often, or as thoroughly, as they should be. And nothing usually happens to the accused – Kavanaugh and Trump are only the most prominent examples.
It begs the question of whether what Kearsen1 suggested earlier about protection by anonymity might not work in favor of the accuser.
My comments were what I believe to perfectly fine and good things that have come from the #MeToo movement along with the bad thing(s) that have come from it as well. Which is why I agreed with your earlier post that offered some nuance to the statements.
It got the ball rolling, in the right direction IMO. What iiiandyiii has posted here in this very thread is that he doesn’t give on whit about the accuser, as long as the accused is believed and the accuser investigated.
As to whether or not anonymity this favors the accused, I would certainly hope not. I don’t see how that would even be possible. They were just accused of being a sexual predator, what favor have they been done?
What it definitely DOES DO is keep the public from coming to a conclusion one way or the other, until it has been decided by whatever investigation is at hand.
What it would also do is keep politically squabbles out of sight, in some (most?) cases.
Not interested in opinion about being a sexual predator. Either they are, and they are jailed, not confirmed/fired/humiliated etc or they aren’t because you can’t prove it. Letting it sit in the public, even if found not guilty, has repercussions (in the real world)
Maybe less repercussions for the wealthy that can afford the best and brightest defense.