Because in this case, the justice system failed society. A white male of privilege got about the shortest sentence he could - the woman he raped was apparently also white, but wasn’t a Stanford student, she lived in the neighborhood. He showed no remorse, took no responsibility and his father’s plea for leniency read like “I raised my son to be an entitled asshole, so you know, he’s entitled to leniency.”
Had this been a black high school dropout raping the same woman - statistically he’d have been metaphorically lynched by the justice system (and within living memory, he’d have been lynched in about half the states in this country). The media would have lynched him as well - it wouldn’t be a white athlete who got too drunk to make good decisions - it would have been a black thug who was known to abuse drugs and alcohol. His father’s plea that he was really a good kid who’d made a mistake would fall on deaf ears.
When the justice system fails society, society tends to address it. BLM is a similar effort to address the injustice we have in our justice system - and its a similar injustice. Some people have a lot of anger over this and feel they need to take it out on something. At least Brock Turner seems like a “deserving” target and the cause seems just. The same thing cannot be said for gamergate victims.
If we’re talking about firing someone from a job, kicking them out of University, cancelling a contracted performance, kicking them out of a club they’re a member of, or anything like that, the standard should be civil, not criminal, proof. That’s to say, preponderance of evidence. You shouldn’t get to do massive financial and social harm without strong evidence that isn’t counteracted. Which means, basically, a lot more than one person’s uncorroborated word.
I’m surprised and disappointed that people seem to think otherwise, given how many high profile false accusations have been seen and discussed here recently.
Usually there is more than that, because organizations don’t want to risk civil suit.
My rape was a workplace sexual harassment case. It took a year long investigation before they fired the guy. And then, they made up some other reason to get rid of him.
And organizations have to balance the safety and rights of the purported victim with those of the accused. To discover a woman was actually raped by a fellow employee - and during the eighteen months it took to work through the justice system, she had to face him every day on the job because she needed to earn a living and retain her professional status - and nothing at all was done to help keep her safe from him because he’s “innocent until proven guilty” is negligent. And if she wasn’t safe - if one day she is working late and he comes into the office and beats the shit out of her - well, you’ve got a lot of legal issues.
But sometimes organizations move too quickly - often because the media tends to push for quick resolution and we don’t have journalist who investigate and weigh - we have reporters writing clickbait. If the allegation hits the media, the public expects the organization to move swiftly to address it. If your star quarterback gets accused of rape - the media will get it. If you do nothing and he is found guilty, you’ll get roasted. Look at Penn State - where there were rumors upon rumors that people chose to ignore or cover up. Or the Catholic Church - no one wants to be one of those organizations.
You know that someone telling you something is evidence, right? So a preponderance of the evidence can be established by “I believe X’s statement more than I believe Y’s statement.”
Well, according to Slacker, you aren’t even allowed to tell your uncorroborated story to anyone, because other people won’t be able to control their reaction to it and will be biased against the person. You are supposed to actively conceal that such a thing occurred up to and until you have a preponderance of the evidence, and then at that moment you have to go to the cops, and if you don’t go to the cops you’re morally culpable as well.
No, the cops and prosecutors are supposed to help you gather that evidence. Until they have done so, they should not be widely publicizing the person’s name who was accused. If they fail to gather enough, then that’s the way it goes and you should keep it to yourself or within close confidences.
What if you are positive there will not be enough? I am out with a guy, he pulls over and pulls out a knife and says we aren’t going anywhere unless and until I have sex with him. I do, in fear of my life. There’s no struggle, no marks, not one shred of evidence of assault.
You are arguing that
I have an active responsibility to submit to a rape kit and an intrusive interview, knowing that there will be no follow up because there is no evidence. But I still need to go through the whole process because of the principle of the thing.
I have an active responsibility to only tell my very close confidants (are cousins okay? friends? Or is it just my mom and sister I can tell?) and that it is an evil, sinful act to let even a hint of what happened slip to anyone else? Because that might give them a negative impression of the man who raped me?
I do not begin to understand how not doing #1 makes me culpable in later rapes the man might commit, but not only do I now have a social responsibility **not **to warn my roommate, my co-worker, my sister’s best friend not to be alone with him, i’m actually a bad person if I do.
Supposing arguendo that I am actually raped and the police are unable to find sufficient evidence to move forward, why am I under obligation to keep my mouth shut? Hey, rapist, you were careful enough to cover your tracks … I guess I owe you that much. Something like that?
I know. Like, the day after I am violently raped, if I call in sick, do I have to lie about what happened, in case there isn’t enough evidence to prove it was rape in a court of law? If I’m missing work for my trial, do I have to somehow give people an impression I’m on the jury, just in case they know the guy?
It’s not like an accused rapist already doesn’t have a massive advantage in the likelihood of ever being brought to justice.
But just in case, the actual rape victim—in addition to having to suffer the actual consequences of rape—must behave as if the most important consideration above all is to make sure that there is absolutely no hint of scandal that would affect the reputation of his or her attacker.
Because that would be the most tragic consequence.
Hell, the rape victim is already literally and figuratively fucked—why ruin another person’s life in the process? Better to keep the damage contained.
Please, won’t you consider the poor rapist? Don’t be so mean.
This is a really good case of ‘ethical theory’ completely going to shit when faced with the reality of life on earth. The more I think about it, the more logically inconsistent it seems. If you know, for a fact, that someone has a history of committing violent or harmful acts, why wouldn’t the burden of responsibility swing the complete other direction – to warn as many people as you possibly can? Slacker seems to think the rapist should have privileges here on account of there not being enough evidence. That seems bonkers to me. The person is a rapist. Who the fuck cares is their name gets smeared? We’re not talking about theoretically innocent people here, we’re talking about actual perpetrators. To expect the victim to actually give a shit about the reputation of the person who raped them is insane.
People are either going to listen to the experiences of survivors, or they aren’t.
It’s still completely demoralizing when our experiences are not heard.
I think in his mind he thinks he’s saying “Better 1000 victims go unheard than one false accuser be listened to”, but what I am hearing is “Better 1000 women face injustice than one man face injustice”
ETA: That’s really what this is, isn’t it? It’s saying “You can’t speak truth, because if you do, someone else might be heard when they lie”.
Or, he’s saying women are too stupid to know what happens to them, so if they are allowed to speak what they think is truth, it will often be a lie.
That’s the way it goes? I’m sorry, but that’s fucking insane.
As an aside, what other kinds of misbehavior—whether punishable by law or not—should this apply to?
That Dean Martin song will be the theme of all rapists—“Please don’t talk about me when I’m gone … And listen if you can’t say anything real nice it’s better not to talk at all is my advice…”
For Pete’s sake. We talk about living in a rape culture now. This “that’s the way it goes/ keep it to yourself” standard practicality makes consequence-free rape a civil right.
No, my philosophy on this applies irrespective of gender. It would also apply, for example, to a gaggle of women who had gone on castrating sprees, if one unknown member of the group is innocent.
As for all the other objections, I assume Acsenray at least is familiar with the adage “Hard cases make bad law”.
Do you really think it’s 1) immoral NOT to report a rape, even if you have no evidence but also 2) immoral to let anyone know about the rape, even if it’s someone putting themselves in potential danger? The same rape?
And understand, this isn’t a outlier. MOST rapes can’t be successfully prosecuted.
Also, looking at the example of the 1 innocent man of 10… we know for a fact that 9 of them rape and torture children, but we let them all go free instead of condemning one innocent man to prison.
There’s no other way to interpret this than, ‘‘One innocent man going to prison is worse than (at minimum) 9 children being tortured and murdered.’’
What?
[QUOTE=SlackerInc]
No, my philosophy on this applies irrespective of gender. It would also apply, for example, to a gaggle of women who had gone on castrating sprees, if one unknown member of the group is innocent.
[/QUOTE]
I still don’t understand what this has to do with rape victims naming their perpetrators. In this case, nobody is innocent.
More to the point, why should I give a shit about my abuser’s reputation? Do you know what it’s like to be so violated physically and emotionally, to be so fucked in the head for years, to believe someone loves you and has your best interests at heart and have them use that to isolate and abuse you – and then see that person walk around consequence-free while YOU have to deal with all the fallout? YOUR relationships destroyed, YOUR sex life fucked up, YOUR money spent on therapy bills and it’s never, ever his problem? My Mom didn’t even divorce him until six years later. Seriously, how can you possibly argue that I should give a shit? It’s not ‘‘unfair’’ to him to call him out for what he did, he’s a fucking child molester.
I did answer. “Hard cases make bad law.”. And yes, one of the women is innocent. And no, I’m not asking you to have sympathy for your abuser. I’m asking society to have standards that don’t depend on taking every single person’s word for everything. Actually, you don’t want that either. You want people to believe you but disbelieve the person you are accusing of abusing you. You might argue that of course he’s got a reason to lie whereas you don’t. So what you want in a he-said/she-said situation is a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. No thank you.
I understand why it seems scary or objectionable to let 9 torturers/murderers of children out on the streets to keep an innocent man out of prison. Would you also feel then that it’s okay to put 9 innocent men in prison to keep one child torturer/murderer off the streets? Or is it at 5 of each that the threshold is reached?
We could make the streets a lot safer, albeit at great expense for building and staffing prisons, with a change to this type of calculus. But that is not the society I want to live in.
So, looking at it from the viewpoint of someone who is not the victim and therefore does not have first-hand knowledge of the truth… If the police does not find sufficient evidence, you’d have the accused continue to babysit your kids? Hang around with your students?
In other words prioritize keeping the confidence of the accused over and above the safety of people you are responsible for?
You do realize you would run the risk of jail yourself here?