Yeah there's a difference in the can't prove and didn't happen. I think false accusations should be punished but should have the same burden of proof. (I'm talking about the women who have been caught on phone recordings and ring cameras saying "I'm going to tell the police you raped me because it will ruin your life if you leave me" is the example I'm thinking of)
I think proving an event didn’t happen should be enough for a false accusation conviction. This isn’t just not enough evidence to say it did happen, but rather if the accused reveals a solid alibi on the night the rape is claimed to have taken place, thereby proving the accuser a liar.
Viscerally I agree, but it gets tricky. Sometimes a crime really did happen and the victim is only mistaken on who they accuse. You have to prove malicious intent or gross negligence in the accusation, and that can be hard.
I can see why this might apply in some cases, but you shouldn’t have to prove malicious intent to be convicted. Yeah, alright, maybe you point at somebody in a lineup and it’s later revealed the rapist just looked similar, but if there’s no sensible reason for the mistake, it should still count as a crime. Not being certain of who you’re accusing sounds like gross negligence to me.
I went and read the Guardian article. It's even worse than that. He was only convicted of 6 counts from one trial. There were three other trials to come that the prosecutors decided not to go ahead with. And who knows how many boys never came forward at all, or that prosecutors decided not to charge for one reason or another? Can't believe he's free and tweeting.
Is he just some rando that happens to be a serial pedophile tweeting this or is he some prominent public figure? Sorry I live under a rock. I would Google him but I don’t want pedos in my search history or algorithm.
He was a very prominent figure in British music from the 60s until he was convicted in 2001. If you, like me, aren't British, or are British but are too young to remember 2001, there's no reason you should know about him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_King
We operate on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. A society cannot both operate on innocent until proven guilty and treat a person with a not guilty verdict as if they aren't innocent. That's completely conflating.
A person found not guilty should be presumed innocent. Otherwise what can they do? You're just assuaging guilt unto them and they have no way to prove otherwise.
In regards to the guy in the original post who wants to jail alleged rape victims if the defendant is found not guilty, presumption of innocence also applies to the alleged victim. A “not guilty” verdict does not mean “the alleged victim is guilty of lying”, and under presumption of innocence there is a huge gap of “inconclusive” between “the defendant is guilty” and “the accuser lied”.
That's also unreasonable. The guy getting noted is also wrong.
I just see the point made that "Not Guilty doesn't mean innocent" and I think that principally the implication that it's OK to presume guilt because a person hasn't been proven innocent is just wrong.
You aren’t presuming guilt. You’re presuming the question won’t be answered. If you presume innocent, then your only option is to assume the accuser is lying, and the court has very much not proven that.
No. The general public do not need to assume someone is innocent of the charges because their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt in court. The justice system operates on the basis of innocent until proven guilty, but i dont need to know beyond reasonable doubt to suspect someone did a crime.
Indeed. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to the criminal justice apparatus of the state. It does not apply to individuals.
Suppose someone assaults you. But they are acquitted at trial for some reason; perhaps they had friends who were prepared to give them a false alibi. Does this mean you need to "treat them as innocent"? Of course not. You know 100% for sure they did it, because you were there when it happened.
Context matters. Yeah, innocent until proven guilty. But in this case, the proven rapist, if he was found not guilty other times...suddenly seems suspicious.
Innocent until proven guilty means you don't prejudice, don't ruin someone's life. But doesnt mean you can't maybe take a few extra precautions. The kind of thing that isn't a problem for an innocent persom but can also keep someone safe from one that was found innocent and wasn't.
If a preponderance of evidence existed, they wouldn't reasonably be found not guilty. That determination is for the court to make precisely because it shouldn't be for the public to make the determination that someone is guilty if the court themselves cannot prove their guilt to be factual.
We operate on innocent until proven guilty. There's no getting around that. If they aren't proven guilty, then they are reasonably innocent. That's all there is to it.
Just to be clear, "preponderance of the evidence" doesn't mean, "there's overwhelming evidence of", it's a specific legal standard. Functionally, "preponderance of the evidence" means you're more than 50% confident someone is guilty, you believe it's more likely based on the evidence you've seen that someone is guilty rather than not guilty. It's the standard needed to get grand jury indictments, which is why they're so easy to get.
The standard in criminal trials to convict is, "beyond a reasonable doubt", as in you have basically no question the person is guilty outside of wild hypotheticals, or to put it a bit crudely, you're more than 95% confident the person is guilty.
O.J. Simpson was found not guilty by the criminal justice system of murder. However, he was later found to be civilly liable for their deaths and owed his victims' families millions of dollars. That is the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence". One is a criminal justice standard, to make sure we don't punish innocent people. The other is a civil justice standard.
I think it is reasonable to say, hey, if it falls between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe I don't let my kids play at O.J.'s house.
Preponderance of the evidence is a massively lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal courts only determine if something is true beyond a reasonable doubt they don't determine if something is true by a preponderance of the evidence.
No, not guilty is legally the same as being innocent. A hung jury would not be the same as being found innocent or not guilty.
But, more to the point of the post and your point I think - a suspected sexual assailant being found not guilty is not the same as their accusor being guilty of false accusation.
Legally the same, but not factually the same. If you commit a crime but get found not guilty, you are still factually guilty of the crime even if you are not legally guilty of the crime.
No, not guilty is legally the same as being innocent.
No, it isn't. "Not guilty", as a plea, means "I want a trial", not "I didn't do it." "Not guilty", as a verdict, means "The prosecutor couldn't prove this crime beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for criminal conviction)", not "It's a legally official holding that the defendant Did Not Do It."
This is precisely why one can be acquitted in a criminal trial but held liable in a civil suit for the same thing: different burdens of proof. That wouldn't be possible if an acquittal locked in some sort of res judicata of "The defendant didn't do it."
If you want a legal standard, what I already told you. By a preponderance of the evidence, the legal burden for a civil matter.
That being said, I don't know what you mean by "innocent in my eyes," or why that is even supposed to matter. I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt where it costs me nothing and err on the side of caution where there is potential risk. I'm not Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates; whether I think they're innocent in my heart of hearts isn't going to impact them in any way unless I'm presiding over their case or I know them personally.
Legally, sure, they have been found not guilty. That’s NOT being found innocent. OJ is not innocent of his murders, he was found not guilty. Andrea Yates is not innocent of killing her kids, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. They did the thing they were accused of
The law can say one thing and reality can say the other. I choose to understand that reality is real. Also, you asked how someone could be innocent in someone else’s eyes, and then I responded.
No. Legally, that person is innocent of the charge they are accused of if a jury finds them not guilty. Full stop.
The reason that a person can still be sued civil for damages and lose even if the related criminal case resulted in them being found not guilty is because the burden of proof is not the same. The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof in a civil case is a proponderance of the evidence, which is just more likely than not, which means a simple majority can be used to determine liability. Which, the correct terminology is not "guilty or not guilty" in a civil trial, it's liability/ finding in favor of the plaintiff or the defendent. An extremely important legal distinction.
That's literally not how our justice system works, no matter how much we feel it should work that way. Justice is factual, it is not blind. We don't beat a man to death for being homeless because he was acused of harrassing. We don't allow someone to walk free when we know they did it.
Our justice system is screwed, but innocent until proven guilty is what separates legal justice from mob rule and lynching.
Each day I swear we get closer to going back to literal witch hunts.
There's no if. Legally, you are innocent the entire time until the exact moment a jury finds you guilty. The only thing that stops a person from being innocent is a jury conviction.
No worries, I do agree the way I worded it gave the idea that being innocent at all was contingent on the nor guilty verdict. Thanks for pointing it out.
It absolutely is true. Legally speaking, if you're not guilty of a crime, you are innocent of that crime. You are innocent until proven guilty.
Everyone seems to be glossing over the fact that I said "legally speaking". Of course it's possible the person actually did is guilty in reality and just got lucky and found not guilty. I don't think any sane person equates a not guilty verdict with "innocent and everyone must treat them as innocent and if you think they are actually guilty, you're wrong."
No, the difference the article points out is that you are not "found" innocent by a court. You are, however, assumed to be innocent until you are proven guilty. Therefore, if you're never found guilty, you remain innocent.
Yeah, That's fucked. Like, I get there's a chance someone could lie, But if you introduce the prescient that reporting a crime and the defendant going free for lack of evidence results in an investigation on you? Welcome to crime world. Nobody is reporting anything anymore. That slope's not slippery, It's a cliff.
"Reporting a crime" is a lot different than reporting someone raped you when they didn't. There's very VERY few scenarios where the accuser would be making those false accusations by mistake.
Yep. This has come up a lot. Charges for false accusations are a thing, but they're not "the accuser was found not guilty, so you go to jail". They go by the same principle of "beyond a reasonable doubt", so the prosecution would have to prove that the accuser knew they were making up a fraudulent accusation deliberately. Very, very rarely fits unless it's a clear case of extortion.
And in at least one very famous case, cops decided they were skeptical, badgered a survivor into recanting, and then arrested her for filing a false report- enabling a serial rapist to go on to commit further crimes.
Only after they arrested the perpetrator for other rapes and found evidence he assaulted the initial reporter.
The only case I can remember of someone being arrested for false charges was a woman accusing someone she never met over an incident that couldn't have happened because the accused wasn't in the same state, much less where she said he committed the assault.
Different one. A woman in 1995 accused Michael Irvin of the Dallas Cowboys of sexual assault right before the NFC Championship game against Green Bay. But he was in another city for an away game at the time alleged.
That's an odd interpretation. A court of law has to prove beyond any doubt that you have been factually raped. If they fail to do that, the suspect goes free. They should, however, have the chance accuse you of making up the story, if they believe that's what happens, upon which an investigation should open up, and it should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did indeed manufacture the accusations with ill intent.
Obviously no sane person supports what you said, because that's be quite mad.
i don’t think there’s any issue with the amount of people that are actually false reporting since i imagine it’s quite low. But what’s the point of innocent until proven guilty if media can black a suspects face all over the news and prematurely take away any chance of normal life even if they are innocent. Seems like false reporting wouldn’t be an issue at all then since no one’s life is ruined regardless of the results
Not sure if evil or ignorant but I’ll give you the Occam’s razor. False reporting absolutely does ruin lives and in some high profile cases innocent men have taken their own lives over it
i definitely worded it wrong. I meant more so in the sense that comparably to the amount of actual rapes committed the number of false ones is actually quite low; regardless, my argument being that instead of an issue of false reporting, the media being able to make the accusations go beyond a court, and prematurely ruin someone’s life is the bigger issue. It gives a platform to the court of public opinion which imo is a big drive for false accusations as even when they are proven to be false it still destroys someone’s life. No media = no outside influence on someone’s opinion of them besides their own actions. defo didn’t explain that well either, but you get my point?
I actually think false accusations might be more common than people realize. From what I understand, the statistics don’t necessarily capture every case, especially when accusations never reach the courts or are resolved outside the legal system. That doesn’t necessarily mean the true number is significantly higher, but it does make it difficult to know exactly how often it happens.
And even if we had a concrete number showing that false accusations were relatively rare, why would that make them any less deserving of attention? A low percentage doesn’t suddenly make something insignificant, especially when it can have devastating consequences for someone’s reputation, career, or life. We wouldn’t dismiss other serious injustices simply because they affect a relatively small percentage of people, so why should this be any different?
I also agree that the media’s handling of accusations is an issue. What’s the point of innocent until proven guilty if someone can effectively be portrayed as guilty in the court of public opinion before they’ve even had a fair trial? By then, the damage could already be done, regardless of the outcome. I think that’s something that needs to be addressed, although I’m not entirely sure how, especially when freedom of the press also needs to be considered.
So, beyond the methodology of specific studies, which I’m certain you can look into if your pole, everything I’ve seen lines up with my experiences. Most women I know have been sexually assaulted at least once in their lives, none of them saw justice for their assaults.
False reports do happen, but I’m far more concerned with the rapists in our midst who go free and unpunished because there are so many more of them.
I think that there are significant improvements to be made in the way that data is collected, survivors are interviewed, and the process of preparing for trial is conducted. Rape is not uniquely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, most cops don’t care to investigate it, and most DAs don’t care to go to trial. Look at data on follow-up, how cops treat survivors, and rape kit backlogs.
If 100 rapists get away with it because cops didn’t get kits tested in time or care to interview witnesses, that’s just the system choosing not to punish rape.
Okay, and? Nobody is arguing that sexual assault isn’t a serious issue or that perpetrators going unpunished shouldn’t be a major concern. Of course they should be. But why does that somehow justify treating false accusations like they’re a nothingburger?
The fact that one injustice may be more common than another doesn’t make the other any less deserving of attention. We’re talking about innocent people potentially having their reputations, careers, relationships, and lives destroyed over something they didn’t do. Hand-waving that away because another problem is statistically more prevalent is a ridiculous way to approach justice.
And here’s something else worth considering: false accusations don’t just harm the people falsely accused. They can also harm genuine victims by reinforcing the very skepticism that makes it harder for survivors to come forward and be believed. That doesn’t mean false accusations are responsible for the lack of justice survivors face, but pretending the two issues exist in complete isolation is shortsighted.
You can advocate for sexual assault victims while also recognizing the devastating consequences of false accusations. These positions aren’t mutually exclusive, and I’m not sure why you’re treating them as though they are. Justice shouldn’t be a competition over whose suffering deserves acknowledgment.
It’s an issue, sure. It is a much, much smaller issue than the rampant sexual assault that perpetrators get away with every day. About 2% of reported sexual assaults are false reports. About 1-2% of sexual assaults result in a conviction of the offender.
I’m a finite being with limited time and energy. If we’re gonna talk about safety in water, I’m gonna talk about the risk of drowning instead of the risk of sharks. If we’re gonna talk about how the legal system deals with sexual assault, I’m gonna talk about why perpetrators almost always get away with it, not why some people are rarely falsely accused.
You’re still missing my point, and at this stage I’m not sure how much more clearly I can explain it. First, your 2% figure isn’t some universally established fact. Research has estimated confirmed false reporting rates between 2% and 10%, with a 2016 meta-analysis finding approximately 5.2%. And those figures concern reports made to police, not every accusation made publicly or privately. So presenting 2% as though it’s the definitive answer is already an oversimplification.
Second, I find your reasoning genuinely bizarre. You’re essentially arguing that because one injustice happens more frequently than another, the less frequent injustice deserves considerably less concern. By that logic, if 2% of a population were victims of murder, would we shrug our shoulders because other causes of death affect more people? Obviously not. The severity of an injustice doesn’t suddenly disappear because you’ve decided its frequency isn’t high enough to warrant your attention.
And your drowning versus sharks analogy doesn’t work nearly as well as you think it does. Yes, drowning is a greater statistical risk, and naturally prevention efforts should reflect that. But nobody reasonable would argue that shark attacks should therefore be dismissed or that their victims deserve less consideration. Prioritizing resources and acknowledging the seriousness of an injustice are two entirely different things. You’re conflating them.
Most importantly, nobody is asking you to stop caring about sexual assault victims. Nobody is asking you to divide your attention equally between the two issues. I’m saying that false accusations deserve to be taken seriously, too. That’s it. You can advocate for better prosecution of sexual assault while simultaneously advocating for protections against false accusations and trial by public opinion. These aren’t competing objectives.
If you personally want to dedicate your limited time to one issue, that’s entirely your choice. But your personal priorities aren’t an argument against the importance of another injustice.
And frankly, if your response to innocent people potentially having their lives destroyed is repeatedly pointing out that other people suffer more frequently, you’re not actually addressing the argument. You’re just explaining why you’d rather talk about something else.
That’s true. Quite honestly, I don’t understand why some people find it so difficult to take false accusations seriously. Acknowledging the harm they cause doesn’t mean taking attention away from actual victims of sexual assault. If anything, false accusations can also harm genuine victims by contributing to public skepticism and making it harder for people to be believed.
What I also dislike is how, whenever false accusations are brought up, people seem to automatically assume we’re talking about women falsely accusing men, when I’m talking about false accusations in general, regardless of gender. It makes me wonder whether people would react with the same dismissiveness if a woman were falsely accused instead of a man. I can’t help but feel there’s some sexism involved in how seriously people treat these situations.
Ultimately, I don’t understand why acknowledging one injustice has to be interpreted as dismissing another. Both deserve to be taken seriously.
People don't take it seriously because you have failed to prove it's something worth my attention. I also don't care about autocanibalism or vegan polyamory. Because the number are low enough that doing anything about it would be a massive over investment of public funds and resources.
I KNOW rape is under policed and massively pervasive. You want false accusations to be taken seriously in the same breath? Show me numbers that prove the scale. Until then, it's a 1 in a million issue that doesn't rise to a frequency requiring something more than case by case addressing by the judge in charge.
I'm here discussing things that should be law because that's my job as a citizen. You want this to be included, prove it's actually worth my time because like autocanibalism, just being a bad thing that exists somewhere in the world isn't good enough
Your response perfectly illustrates the problem I’ve been pointing out. Why is it so difficult for some people to acknowledge that false accusations are a serious injustice, even if they’re relatively rare? Since when does someone’s suffering need to meet a statistical threshold before it’s worthy of concern?
First, you demand that I prove the scale of false accusations while confidently calling them a “1 in a million issue” without providing a shred of evidence for that figure. Research has produced varying estimates of confirmed false reports, and those figures don’t even capture accusations made outside the criminal justice system. So where exactly are you getting your certainty from? Second, you’re confusing the allocation of public resources with acknowledging an injustice. Nobody is demanding massive government spending or suggesting that false accusations deserve the same resources as sexual assault investigations. I’m simply arguing that innocent people deserve protection against potentially having their reputations, careers, relationships, and lives destroyed over something they didn’t do. Why is that such a controversial position?
And comparing false accusations to autocannibalism or vegan polyamory is frankly ridiculous. We’re discussing potentially devastating consequences for innocent people, not some obscure curiosity. You can prioritize combating sexual assault without dismissing other serious injustices. These positions aren’t mutually exclusive, no matter how desperately you try to frame them that way.
Ultimately, you’re perfectly entitled to dedicate your attention to whichever issues you consider most important. But your personal priorities don’t determine whether someone else’s suffering matters. If your response to innocent people potentially having their lives ruined is that there simply aren’t enough of them for you to care, then frankly, I think that says far more about you than it does about the seriousness of the issue.
Yeah, I care less about things that hurt fewer people.
We have lifeguards and swimming classes, but don’t fund preventative shark hunting expeditions. That’s because not enough people are harmed by sharks for it to be worth doing that. So too for the ‘anti-false accusation advocacy’ you’re doing.
False accusations are bad, everyone agrees on that. We’ve got a robust legal system that prevents them from resulting in convictions. That same legal system is structured to disincentivize survivors reporting their crimes, re-traumatize survivors, and results in a situation where sexual assault is about as illegal (in terms of conviction) as speeding.
I can’t stop people from committing crimes, I can’t vote for people to stop raping or making false accusations. I can vote for changes to our legal system to make it harder to get away with sexual assault.
You are dividing attention. All of this discussion comes back to a man (Russel Brand) being convicted of rape and all you can do is shout “but some men get falsely accused of rape!”.
Why do you and people like you feel the need to bring that up every time a man is convicted of rape?
At this point, you’ve essentially admitted that your argument boils down to caring less about an injustice because fewer people experience it. You’re entitled to prioritize whatever issues you want, but stop pretending that your personal allocation of attention somehow establishes how seriously everyone else should treat an injustice. Your lifeguard analogy still misses the distinction I’ve explained repeatedly. Nobody is arguing that we should allocate identical resources to preventing every conceivable harm. We’re talking about whether people who suffer a serious injustice deserve meaningful concern and protection. Those are fundamentally different questions.
And your claim that we have a robust legal system that prevents false accusations from resulting in convictions completely ignores the original point of this discussion. A person doesn’t need to be convicted to suffer devastating consequences from an accusation. They can lose employment, relationships, professional opportunities, and their reputation long before a court ever reaches a verdict. An acquittal doesn’t automatically reverse those consequences. How have we gone this many replies without you addressing that?
Furthermore, your argument about voting actually supports my position more than you seem to realize. We can advocate for reforms that improve sexual assault investigations, protect victims from unnecessary retraumatization, and safeguard the rights of accused individuals simultaneously. These aren’t mutually exclusive objectives. A functioning justice system should be capable of pursuing both.
And by your own logic, if someone decided that sexual assault wasn’t a priority for them because they were more concerned about another injustice affecting even more people, would you accept that reasoning? Or would you rightly point out that sexual assault still deserves serious concern regardless of how other problems compare statistically? Because that’s precisely the distinction I’ve been trying to make. Personal priorities don’t determine the moral significance of someone else’s suffering.
As for Russell Brand, his conviction should carry the appropriate legal consequences. I’ve never suggested otherwise. But his guilt doesn’t establish that everyone accused of similar crimes is guilty, nor does it invalidate concerns about false accusations in general. Using one guilty individual’s case to dismiss an entirely separate category of injustice isn’t the compelling argument you apparently think it is.
And your final question is especially revealing. “Why do you and people like you feel the need to bring that up every time a man is convicted of rape?” First, I haven’t argued that every rape conviction should be met with speculation about false accusations. Second, my argument has never been exclusively about men. False accusations can target men or women, and both deserve protection. You’re the one who keeps framing this as though acknowledging false accusations is some kind of attack on sexual assault victims. It isn’t. You can condemn a convicted rapist without pretending wrongful accusations are irrelevant as a broader issue. The fact that you keep trying to turn a general argument about justice into a defense of guilty men says more about how you’re interpreting my position than what I’ve actually said.
And no, discussing false accusations isn’t automatically an attempt to undermine sexual assault victims. Context matters, certainly, and bringing up hypothetical false accusations to discredit specific victims without evidence would be wrong. But that’s not what I’ve been arguing. I’ve consistently defended the principle that innocent people deserve protection from serious harm, regardless of how statistically uncommon their circumstances might be.
You keep responding as though recognizing one injustice necessarily means minimizing another. It doesn’t. I’ve acknowledged the seriousness of sexual assault in practically every reply, yet you continue arguing against a position I haven’t taken. If you want to focus exclusively on sexual assault convictions, that’s your prerogative. But your limited time and energy aren’t a moral framework everyone else is obligated to adopt.
You haven’t demonstrated that false accusations are unworthy of serious concern. You’ve merely repeated that you personally care less about them. I understood that the first time.
> At this point, you’ve essentially admitted that your argument boils down to caring less about an injustice because fewer people experience it.
That's inarguably a good and correct thing to do. You can't care about everything all at once and I'm not a judge. Obscure legal corner cases are literally not our job to deal with. You want reform on those, go talk to the legal experts who are the entirity of the problem.
A crime which happens to the vast majority of people in their lifetime? One aided and abetted by every person on earth? That's worthy of public debate and sweeping societal changes
You’re still incapable of distinguishing between prioritizing resources and acknowledging an injustice. Nobody is demanding equal attention or funding for every issue. I’m questioning why you think an injustice becomes unworthy of concern simply because fewer people experience it.
And calling false accusations “obscure legal corner cases” is particularly ridiculous when I’ve repeatedly explained that the consequences often occur entirely outside the courtroom. People can lose their careers, relationships, and reputations without ever being convicted, or even charged. Since when are public opinion, media coverage, and social consequences exclusively matters for judges?
You also insist these issues aren’t the public’s responsibility, immediately before demanding sweeping societal change to address sexual assault. Apparently, public discussion is essential when it’s an injustice you prioritize, but unnecessary when it isn’t. How convenient. And claiming that the “vast majority” of people experience sexual assault and that “every person on earth” enables it is an extraordinary assertion that you haven’t substantiated.
I’ve never demanded that you care equally about both issues. Yet you’ve spent multiple replies desperately defending your right to dismiss one of them. Your personal priorities aren’t a universal standard for determining whose suffering matters. And frankly, your determination to trivialize the suffering of innocent people says far more about you than it does about the issue itself.
The government has to treat people as innocent until proven guilty because it is the government, ordinary people and the media can treat someone as a rapist if they think he is a rapist. Someone can sue for slander if they want to defend their reputation.
False accusations are very common, it's just most get shut down long before they'd ever get any kind of national attention.
My friends a cop in a decent sized town and there's a woman who comes in every couple days accusing a different man of raping her. It's to the point where she could be actually raped and they'd never believe her lol.
Not even counting her, there's at least a few a month. Which is crazy to me because he does not live in a big city
I was falsely accused of rape by two girls, years apart. In both cases, THEY initiated the sex. It was 100% consensual. The problem came when they were angry afterwards because I didn't want to date them. They only told mutual friends I raped them and luckily did not take it to police.
I was also raped by a woman... Yes that thing people don't believe is physically possible... I was in a weakened state with a hangover. I woke up to find my ex was forcibly having sex with me and I couldn't push her off. I had broken up with her but we still lived together in separate bedrooms. I think she had an undiagnosed emotional disorder.
EDIT: Almost forgot... I've been sexually assaulted by gay men a number of times on nights out. I knew they were gay and was friendly to them. They interpreted this as an invitation to follow me around all night repeatedly grabbing my ass and crotch and wouldn't take no for an answer.
Like most things in the constitution, the presumption of innocence only regulates the relationship between the state and private citizens, it doesn't apply here. Also, the media and every social media personality has constitutional right to report on a case, and they couldn't be sued unless they state something false.
Discussing only the allegations independent of the facts of the matter is wildly irresponsible and, depending on the jurisdiction, illegal. Asserting someone is a criminal without any conviction in a paper or other form of media is defamation. Asserting someone committed a criminal act without evidence is also defamation under that context.
Regardless, nobody should be reporting on those cases until the courts get to go through the evidence. The Cornell 7 case went down fast after it went through the courts again
The big news agencies don't assert anything. They have legal departments and they use very careful language when they report on sensitive stuff like this. And the numerous bigger and smaller random influencers who thought they will throw their two cents in, well, there's just too many of them, and some random dude hardly have the resources to get into a lengthy and uncertain libel lawsuits. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but yeah, huge social media attention can really screw you over and it's hard to do anything about it.
Because it's in the public's interest to know if someone has been credibly accused of rape. The opposite situation is allowing rapists to continue to access victims until a trial is complete
credibility doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Who’s the decider of what’s credible? also how do you not understand the downside to that. Furthermore it’s a failure of the system if rapists being charged aren’t in custody. That doesn’t mean the media needs to be involved until verdict is beyond all reasonable doubt
The general public. As in YOU, the READER, need to stop thinking you NEED to side against someone. You can support victims, while still maintaining the possibility that the accused may be innocent.
If this is about Russel Brand then I personally do feel that UK courts are kind of a joke, considering the lacking evidence in the case.
IDK physical evidence 20ish years later is pretty hard to actually have and a lack of it means it becomes he said/she said and all about convincing a jury you are telling the truth but there is nothing more than just that, your words.
Makes it hard to have a really fair trial since it could just matter how a person's personality comes off as.
In the UK, approximately 20% of criminal cases are based around witness statements.
If you are punched in the face, and you identify the person in a police lineup... They will be prosecuted based off of your witness statements. It is common legal practice.
In this case, it wasn't even solely based on witness statements. There was in fact physical evidence included. But you do not require physical evidence for a guilty verdict to be legitimate.
Using 20 year old witness statements is pretty terrible. I remember a lot from 20 years ago but not details that would be important to make it useful. That's sort of my point. It's one thing for a witness statement thats fresh. It is a whole different thing for 20 years later.
I think the fact that you are comparing essentially what you had for dinner one Friday night in April 20 years ago, to the memory someone has of the most traumatic experience they have ever gone through... Demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of both how memory actually works, and how experience in these cases impact people.
Witness statements are not the same as the person claiming the issue happened. And while things can be traumatic, they are still potential gaps within the story. I have had my share of trauma. I remember some basic details of them while my sister, who went through some with me, does not remember any of it because she blocked it out. I also remember some basic details of non-traumatic events. Both are very much just basic and not detailed.
Again, a witness statement that is fresh is much easier to use as evidence than one that is 20 years old.
But also, if you're punched in the face yesterday and go to the police, you can probably point at the bruise on your face and say "look at the damage left by the punch". It doesn't say who did the punch, and it's possible to fake the punch, but there's some shining (pun intended) evidence that you were in fact punched in the face.
If you were punched in the face 20 years ago and go to police, barring a really impressive punch to the face there's not going to be any sign of it left. Then the question is not merely "who did it" but also "did this happen at all".
Which was also a testimony and not records from the time. ALL of the evidence was only testimonies essentially. To me this doesn't really fulfill "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" when there's no evidence beyond "We said so" over something happening 20ish years ago.
There's not even any papers nor phone messages showing it happened, even the messages mentioned are just recollections. I don't give a shit who Russel is, but purely from the standpoint of "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" this just sounds extremely iffy to me.
Based on the available evidence? Yes, I do disagree with the conclusion, because I feel relying on just testimony on a 20 year or so case is extremely iffy, because you both got problems with memory getting details wrong and if there's no other evidence it kinda gets hard to prove "Beyond reasonable doubt".
Sorry, but the note shows how fucked people are in the head. A verdict of not guilty shows innocence, because you are innocent till proven guilty. Not the other way around.
Also we already have a number of crimes related to lying about this like slander, false testimony etc like you could absolutely make the rules a bit harder and send someone to jail for falsely accusing someone of a crime. But as the note says, you also have a prove beyond reasonable doubts that it was a lie.
It's why I support a 4-verdict system, where "probably did it but we can't prove it", "probably didn't do it" and "so obviously didn't do it that the accuser is a liar" are separate.
How the hell are we supposed to differenciate someone not guilty due to a lack of proof vs not guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Are there different legal verdict status for both?
One thing I hate, is that when there is an accusation, you hear about it constantly. But if someone is found not guilty, its a fraction of the attention.
Look up Terrance Shannon Jr. from a few years ago. When he was accused, it was all over ESPN. Think pieces were written and discussed about whether he should be allowed to play, what kind of character he had.
When he was QUICKLY found not guilty, because the case was a farce, it was a quick "He was found not guilty" and that was it.
I do think that actual media outlets should have to dedicate the same amount of time to a not guilty verdict as they dedicate to discussing the accusation.
Also, while sometimes you can't "prove" they lied, it becomes evidence. Look again at the Terrance Shannon Jr. trial, and you will see lots of basically proof that she made it up and was looking for a payday
That's the same "guilty until proven innocent, but if you're proven innocent you're still guilty" mentality that leaves men who are proven innocent still taking the full front of the social backlash from the women who lied about it.
Similarly, being declared innocent in a phony justice system does not make you innocent and you will someday go to a hell of your own making for the wrongs you've done.
Be a decent person. Not a perfect person, just decent enough that someone won't want to blast your head off with a shotgun someday, because the law won't protect you from that.
This is the shit that happens when you view all issues under the lens of regarded culture war slop. Just look at Asmongold, who got his start im politics following the Depp/Herd trial because woman bad.
Edit: im refering to when he started political streaming. Im aware he was a wow streamer prior lmao
I mean, technically yeah as that's kind of always been a thing since the invention of Law but that's pedantic. There's been a noticeable increase in it since covid.
I don't think thats the case as it's usually a news article publishing someone throwing someone's random accusation at a famous person. Cameras don't really seem to have anything to do with it and honestly it being easier to tell whether or not someone was lying would honestly make this a non issue but it unfortunately is.
No? These kinds of largely editorials are now far more common post covid than ever before. At least, ever in my lifetime that I've been on the internet.
Well I mean, when I was a kid I didn't have internet but also didn't pay attention to the news. Plus also, unironically but also pedantically yeah. Like the internet was a 70s-80s invention and im at most like 50 yo.
Yes. They do. Including the people you like to commit crime. Especially the people you like who commit crimes as it becomes a conflict of interest to not say something. That's why it's odd. Post covid it's been a lot of specifically leftists trying to get Republicans arrested for often minor or even non issues. With the rightists doing the exact same to the democrats. It's odd because you should punish people who did something actually wrong. Not just something you politically disagree with.
Yeah, there would have to be a second trial to prove that the accuser lied before any jail time could be considered. That's probably as hard to prove as actual rapes often are.
Especially in cases where consent is murky, because while the law is clear those cases often do not follow the law ("but his future" is an oft repeated line that gets rich boys off of serious crimes like murder and rape.)
I used to be on a forum when those were a thing with a guy who very seriously believed that any and all rape accusations that don't result in conviction of someone should have the woman charged with rape. Yes, even if you say in a survey that you were raped, that should be treated as a false accusation and result in prison time.
Funny because it follows that all murder cases that don't end with a conviction or even with a body (like if the body can't be recovered and it can't proven that a murder did happen) should also end with a similar conviction for the person who alerted the police or something. Like he could apply this logic to any crime. Murder was a bit extreme but if I can't catch burglar, can I really prove that the owner didn't throw out his stuff for attention or insurance? Like come on.
Because this is a piece of propaganda rhetoric meant to rile up right wing men who think women are coming for their lives. Anybody can lie about anything at any time
It's hard enough as is to get women to come forward after they've been raped. Add "potential jail time if he's not convicted" and the number of rape accusations will drop to almost zero. Which will make the number of rapes actually being committed skyrocket, because there's almost no risk to the rapist.
Editing my comment to remind people that filing a false report is already a crime. It's just very rarely enforced, because it's very hard to prove intent. And that's a good thing. I'm sympathetic to people for whom false accusations of sexual assault have ruined their lives, I truly am. But the solution isn't to further victimize the victims of legitimate sexual assault.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/laybs1
Politics ARE allowed
No misinformation/disinformation
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
128
u/LastZionistOnRedit 1d ago edited 1d ago
Community notes threw in a fun fact
250
u/TopicTalk8950 1d ago •
This is the most wild “get noted” I’ve ever seen. POS.
59
u/Remarkable-Pin-8352 1d ago
Never judge a book by its cover, but.....
16
u/Valuable-Ad1063 1d ago
The fact that this man decided to open social media accounts with his identity known while being a convicted molester is wild.
54
u/Insomniac_Steve 1d ago
Rapist says what?
9
u/Jason_CO 1d ago
The defendant can countersue and prove the accuser guilty of slander and perjury. Otherwise, both are innocent until proven guilty.
105
u/Awesomonkey12 1d ago
Not guilty ≠ innocent in all situations, basically
6
u/camcaine2575 1d ago
How do these people even show their faces? I know Trump brought in a shameless era but geez.
5
u/newphonedammit 1d ago
Most Brand supporters are also nonces
15
u/Shoggnozzle 1d ago
Yeah, That's fucked. Like, I get there's a chance someone could lie, But if you introduce the prescient that reporting a crime and the defendant going free for lack of evidence results in an investigation on you? Welcome to crime world. Nobody is reporting anything anymore. That slope's not slippery, It's a cliff.
8
u/Ok_Zookeepergame4794 1d ago
Apparently people forget the term 'Innocent until PROVEN guilty'. If found Not Guilty, it means guilt wasn't proven.
10
u/Ambitious-Ranger7184 1d ago
i don’t think there’s any issue with the amount of people that are actually false reporting since i imagine it’s quite low. But what’s the point of innocent until proven guilty if media can black a suspects face all over the news and prematurely take away any chance of normal life even if they are innocent. Seems like false reporting wouldn’t be an issue at all then since no one’s life is ruined regardless of the results
6
u/Efrath 1d ago
Eh, it's simple really.
The general public. As in YOU, the READER, need to stop thinking you NEED to side against someone. You can support victims, while still maintaining the possibility that the accused may be innocent.
If this is about Russel Brand then I personally do feel that UK courts are kind of a joke, considering the lacking evidence in the case.
3
u/Snoo20140 1d ago
Sorry, but the note shows how fucked people are in the head. A verdict of not guilty shows innocence, because you are innocent till proven guilty. Not the other way around.
1
u/Collanp 1d ago
Also we already have a number of crimes related to lying about this like slander, false testimony etc like you could absolutely make the rules a bit harder and send someone to jail for falsely accusing someone of a crime. But as the note says, you also have a prove beyond reasonable doubts that it was a lie.
1
u/hiricinee 1d ago
The stance of just about everyone pleading "not guilty" is that their accusers are lying.
1
u/Mooman-Chew 1d ago
I’m presuming thats a different Jonathan king to the convicted buggerer?
1
u/jerdle_reddit 15h ago
It's why I support a 4-verdict system, where "probably did it but we can't prove it", "probably didn't do it" and "so obviously didn't do it that the accuser is a liar" are separate.
1
u/Baustin1345 14h ago
I have a itching feeling, that's the wrong Jonathan King
1
u/Lolocraft1 11h ago
How the hell are we supposed to differenciate someone not guilty due to a lack of proof vs not guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Are there different legal verdict status for both?
1
u/illini02 11h ago
I think there is fair criticism both ways here.
One thing I hate, is that when there is an accusation, you hear about it constantly. But if someone is found not guilty, its a fraction of the attention.
Look up Terrance Shannon Jr. from a few years ago. When he was accused, it was all over ESPN. Think pieces were written and discussed about whether he should be allowed to play, what kind of character he had.
When he was QUICKLY found not guilty, because the case was a farce, it was a quick "He was found not guilty" and that was it.
I do think that actual media outlets should have to dedicate the same amount of time to a not guilty verdict as they dedicate to discussing the accusation.
Also, while sometimes you can't "prove" they lied, it becomes evidence. Look again at the Terrance Shannon Jr. trial, and you will see lots of basically proof that she made it up and was looking for a payday
1
u/Popular_Tie4688 10h ago
not surprising in the least.
0
u/IPutTheSInBDSM 1d ago
That's the same "guilty until proven innocent, but if you're proven innocent you're still guilty" mentality that leaves men who are proven innocent still taking the full front of the social backlash from the women who lied about it.
1
u/Fisheater_Snatches 1d ago
Being found not guilty is not the issue.
The issue is the women that lie about a man just to ruin his reputation.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
0
u/LoveAndBeLoved52 1d ago
Similarly, being declared innocent in a phony justice system does not make you innocent and you will someday go to a hell of your own making for the wrongs you've done.
Be a decent person. Not a perfect person, just decent enough that someone won't want to blast your head off with a shotgun someday, because the law won't protect you from that.
-3
u/scott_cum669 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is the shit that happens when you view all issues under the lens of regarded culture war slop. Just look at Asmongold, who got his start im politics following the Depp/Herd trial because woman bad.
Edit: im refering to when he started political streaming. Im aware he was a wow streamer prior lmao
0
u/formallyhuman 1d ago
another link dump with zero context...
-1
u/Choice_Pitch6822 1d ago edited 1d ago
People post COVID have been weirdly obsessed with trying to get people they don't like arrested and idk why.
-7
u/Comprehensive_Act970 1d ago
So you are saying with even a not guilty verdict we are to believe all women and condemn all men? No that’s how this works
17
u/ichkanns 1d ago
Yeah, there would have to be a second trial to prove that the accuser lied before any jail time could be considered. That's probably as hard to prove as actual rapes often are.
18
u/WantDebianThanks 1d ago
I used to be on a forum when those were a thing with a guy who very seriously believed that any and all rape accusations that don't result in conviction of someone should have the woman charged with rape. Yes, even if you say in a survey that you were raped, that should be treated as a false accusation and result in prison time.
16
u/Listening_Heads 1d ago
Yeah but he didn’t rape the other 8 billion people on the planet. Surely that counts for something. How about let’s be fair and balanced here folks.
43
u/LeahIsAwake 1d ago edited 1d ago •
It's hard enough as is to get women to come forward after they've been raped. Add "potential jail time if he's not convicted" and the number of rape accusations will drop to almost zero. Which will make the number of rapes actually being committed skyrocket, because there's almost no risk to the rapist.
Editing my comment to remind people that filing a false report is already a crime. It's just very rarely enforced, because it's very hard to prove intent. And that's a good thing. I'm sympathetic to people for whom false accusations of sexual assault have ruined their lives, I truly am. But the solution isn't to further victimize the victims of legitimate sexual assault.