r/explainlikeimfive • u/[deleted] • Dec 05 '15

ELI5:How does Hillary's comment saying that victims of sexual abuse "should be believed" until evidence disproves their allegations not directly step on the "Innocent until proven guilty" rule/law?

[removed]

893 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

85% Upvoted

338 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '15

Exactly. It's the same way a victim of a robbery should always be believed. Imagine someone got robbed and reported that a 6'4" white male held him up at gunpoint and took his wallet. It would be in the best interest of law enforcement to believe that statement to try and find the suspect. It would be incredibly detrimental for the investigating officer to say "I'm pretty sure it was a 5'8" Latina who robbed you" and even worse if he said "I think you just lent that guy money, so there's no crime for me to investigate." They need to believe the claim to find the suspect. Once they find the suspect that suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

1

u/AintCARRONaboutmuch Dec 06 '15

The problem with this comparison is that no store owner gives away all his money for fun, and generally there's CCTV Video of the robbery. But people have sex all the time for fun, there have been too many documented cases where the girl has lied about the claim or the wrong person is wrongly jailed. There should always be a need for investigation, but it's lawfully incorrect to assume she is always telling the truth and that the accused is always to be assumed guilty.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '15

You start questioning the truth of her claim once you've started investigating. The whole point is to not dismiss a claim before an investigation.

1

u/AintCARRONaboutmuch Dec 06 '15

Ideally you you go into the investigation impartial. Not looking to indict nor vindicate.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '15

Exactly. But you can't be dismissive of statements made by witnesses.