• ahugenerd@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but this has actually happened. The case I know of, personally, involved a bar owner. He was exonerated after a few years being dragged through the mud, but he ended up having to shut down his bar and move out of town to be left alone. This stuff happens.

    Do I have a better alternative? No, it’s a complex issue and we definitely don’t want to victim blame, but we also don’t want to destroy people’s lives over just allegations. It’s a delicate balance. I think one thing we could do, at very least, is to actually stand by the innocent until proven guilty ideal and not publish the identity of the accused until a verdict comes out. This is the way it is in most of Europe and a “perp walk” happening like it does in the US would free highly illegal.

    • MeetInPotatoes
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve given a lot of thought to this issue in the past and I think it all boils down to one indisputable fact:

      “You just believe her” is completely at odds with “innocent until proven guilty.”

      “We should believe women” is a laudable phrase, and it makes us feel good to say it, but men are victims as well, especially trans men. “We should believe victims” would be better, but it is a begging-the-question fallacy, it assumes the victimhood is true. The people who made that not possible are specifically the people who have made false allegations in the past.

      • ahugenerd@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not denying what you’re saying, I’m saying both are a problem and advocating for not throwing out the baby with the bath water. There must be a way to adjust our system to account for both cases, no? Or would that be objectionable to you somehow?