Current Events > 'Innocent until proven guilty' in regards to all these sexual assault cases

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ever notice how a lot of the people who say that have no trouble whatsoever feeling convinced that the alleged victim is guilty of the most extreme kind of fraud when they say that? I.e. they'll say "innocent until proven guilty", but they already feel about 90% sure the woman made the story up for attention/money/because she's crazy.

I'm not saying you need to throw someone in jail based off a single testimony but it's interesting when someone has already decided she's a liar.
---

I think its more backfire to the people who take every allegation at face value
---

False accusations are a serious problem. Just a mere accusation with no evidence is enough to ruin someone's life.
---

Whats the general precedent for a sexual assault case anyway? If theres no witnesses, what usually can they do?
---

It could be confirmation bias based off some bad experiences, though some are just tainted from propaganda or some other influencing factor. Anyway, Im not sure it would be possible for humans to be 100 percent unbiased.

If a person reports an alleged crime, law enforcement should investigate. This is how it is with other crimes, so we shouldnt treat sex crimes differently.
---

ReignFury posted...

I think its more backfire to the people who take every allegation at face value

Yep this.
---

UncleBourbon33 posted...

False accusations are a serious problem. Just a mere accusation with no evidence is enough to ruin someone's life.

Yes, including the person saying it
---

Its guilty even after proven innocent.
That's how ppl end up being treated.
---

No, I haven't particularly noticed that.

But, if so, I suspect their zeal is a response to the fervor of the other side.
---

no but I've noticed the difference in public opinion between Terry Crews naming his assaulter and any female celebrity naming theirs
---

No I don't notice that. What I notice is more the opposite, an inclination and willingness to believe any allegation of a sexual nature if it's coming from a woman. Now we're even seeing more and more allegations of law-abiding consensual relations. It's concept-creep.

Some women do exploit this willingness to believe for attention, pity, appeasement, and social validation. The #MeToo thing started with female actresses and celebrities. On an instinctual social level some women want to be part of that glamorous upper class, and a culture that celebrates victimization would certainly encourage this further. You could say this is an example of toxic femininity. Unfortunately by doing this they're unintentionally trivializing actual rape and assault. Very sad.

The veracity of any accusation is still determined on a case-by-case basis. In the absence of a trial, the rational and wiser segments of the general public might still scrutinize an accuser's story in the spirit of the law, if something sounds fishy.
---

Assuming a person is innocent until proven guilty necessitates that you doubt the accusation

How could it be otherwise?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Assuming a person is innocent until proven guilty necessitates that you doubt the accusation

How could it be otherwise?

"We should wait for further evidence before passing judgment" is a reasonable statement, "she's probably just another lying good digging whore" is not.
---

pinky0926 posted...

UncleBourbon33 posted...

False accusations are a serious problem. Just a mere accusation with no evidence is enough to ruin someone's life.

Yes, including the person saying it

This has never happened
---

Irony posted...

This has never happened

I personally know of someone who made a false accusation and now cannot find a job because nobody will hire her.
---

Sphyx posted...

Irony posted...

This has never happened

I personally know of someone who made a false accusation and now cannot find a job because nobody will hire her.

If you say so
---

I personally believe it is worse for an innocent person to suffer then a guilty person to get away with it.
---

Sphyx posted...

Irony posted...

This has never happened

I personally know of someone who made a false accusation and now cannot find a job because nobody will hire her.

What were they charged with exactly?
---

pinky0926 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Assuming a person is innocent until proven guilty necessitates that you doubt the accusation

How could it be otherwise?

"We should wait for further evidence before passing judgment" is a reasonable statement, "she's probably just another lying good digging whore" is not.

Except the latter belief doesn't ruin a woman's life whereas believing every woman right off the bat does ruin mens lives. It isn't just the act of believing someone's guilty that were fighting against, it's treating someone as.of they're guilty just because they've been accused that we have a problem with. Al Franken is the best example of this.

Some people regard rape as so heinous an offense that they would not even regard innocence as a defense.

-Alan Dershowitz
---

The girl doesn't have to be a liar, but there are still 2 sides to every story.

Have you ever had 2 friends who were involved in a nasty breakup? You trust both of them, but their stories are totally different. Who's lying? It doesn't have to be either one. Memories are altered by emotional experiences.
---

SpiralDrift posted...

What were they charged with exactly?

I don't think there were any charges, it sounded like there wasn't much of an investigation. It wouldn't surprise me if she made an accusation that could be easily and absolutely disproven, she wasn't exactly the smartest peanut in the poo, nor was she good at subtlety. A mutual friend said she later admitted she made it up and that was the end of her job (she accused a supervisor or manager at her work).

Word got around where she lived, and she spent the next few years getting shut down at job interviews because nobody wanted to take the risk that she'd disrupt their workplace with another false accusation. Last i heard of her, she moved to a new town, but someone recognised her where she moved to and it started up all over again.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Ever notice how a lot of the people who say that have no trouble whatsoever feeling convinced that the alleged victim is guilty of the most extreme kind of fraud when they say that? I.e. they'll say "innocent until proven guilty", but they already feel about 90% sure the woman made the story up for attention/money/because she's crazy.

I'm not saying you need to throw someone in jail based off a single testimony but it's interesting when someone has already decided she's a liar.

It's probably more reactionary to the initial wave of condemnation than anything else. Your bias is showing, lol.
---

People are heavily biased when it comes to the law and justice.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

It could be confirmation bias based off some bad experiences, though some are just tainted from propaganda or some other influencing factor. Anyway, Im not sure it would be possible for humans to be 100 percent unbiased.

If a person reports an alleged crime, law enforcement should investigate. This is how it is with other crimes, so we shouldnt treat sex crimes differently.

The problem comes from the court of public opinion.
---

The best part of these topics is how everyone pretends that their own views represent this cold hard cutting logic.
---

darkjedilink posted...

The problem comes from the court of public opinion.

Yes, people can be quick to jump to conclusions. I would not want to have my life upended like that.
---

COVxy posted...

The best part of these topics is how everyone pretends that their own views represent this cold hard cutting logic.

Well some people pretend that, the rest of us are actually like that.
---

When a woman reports something to the media rather than the police, it's fair cause to distrust her.

Why didn't she report it to the police? Because she didn't want any pesky 'investigations', or any liability for her lies, or because she knows nothing illegal actually occured.

If you want to be taken seriously, report it to the police, tell the truth, and let the investigation happen.
---

You gotta admit people are starting to behave like the Salem Witch Trials. No rhyme or reason for the punishment or due process, entire careers and lives just thrown to the trash for stuff that allegedly happened 20-30 years ago? It could be revenge for something petty as they didnt give the actress a role or didnt return a phone call
---

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

The best part of these topics is how everyone pretends that their own views represent this cold hard cutting logic.

Well some people pretend that, the rest of us are actually like that.

Not really. Humans aren't like that. You have biases that make you quicker to condemn in some cases than others. It just seems 'correct' to you, and you substitute correct for logical.
---

Steve Nick posted...

If you want to be taken seriously, report it to the police, tell the truth, and let the investigation happen

To be fair, there are places where the police have a track record of being openly dismissive of rape accusations, or even being actively involved in their own rapes and the subsequent cover ups.

But in a place where this isn't an issue, you would think this is the better path.
---

UncleBourbon33 posted...

False accusations are a serious problem. Just a mere accusation with no evidence is enough to ruin someone's life.

That implies that it happens often, which it does not.
---

COVxy posted...

Not really. Humans aren't like that. You have biases that make you quicker to condemn in some cases than others. It just seems 'correct' to you, and you substitute correct for logical.

On a side note, it's always depressing to identify your own biases in an attempt to be objective.
---

People have doubts anytime you create a frenzy where simply accusing someone brings you attention and gives you a source of power you'll never have elsewhere. There is no downside to any of these women from saying they were victimized, since even ridiculous claims like the ones against Franco or Aziz Ansari will still earn accolades from feminists and people online. These accusers are making appearances on talk shows and taking advantage of their 15 minutes in some cases.

If this was seriously about being victimized, it would be addressed through law enforcement instead of the media, like you would do with any other legitimate crime.
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

The best part of these topics is how everyone pretends that their own views represent this cold hard cutting logic.

Well some people pretend that, the rest of us are actually like that.

Not really. Humans aren't like that. You have biases that make you quicker to condemn in some cases than others. It just seems 'correct' to you, and you substitute correct for logical.

So no one is ever right? Or hell, even logical? Obviously everyone has biases but that doesn't make it impossible to be mindful of those biases and come to logical conclusions. There are tons of people who do just that. And that doesn't mean they're always right. You can come to the most logical and objectively likely conclusion and still be wrong.

MrPeppers posted...

On a side note, it's always depressing to identify your own biases in an attempt to be objective.

You think so? I appreciate it very much because I know it will benefit me greatly.
---

nicklebro posted...

You think so? I appreciate it very much because I know it will benefit me greatly.

If it were that easy to detach yourself from a bias, I'm not sure it would be much of a bias to begin with.
---

nicklebro posted...

So no one is ever right? Or hell, even logical? Obviously everyone has biases but that doesn't make it impossible to be mindful of those biases and come to logical conclusions.

It's really, really not that simple.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Ever notice how a lot of the people who say that have no trouble whatsoever feeling convinced that the alleged victim is guilty of the most extreme kind of fraud when they say that? I.e. they'll say "innocent until proven guilty", but they already feel about 90% sure the woman made the story up for attention/money/because she's crazy.

I'm not saying you need to throw someone in jail based off a single testimony but it's interesting when someone has already decided she's a liar.

When anybody makes an accusation against another I always ask what do they have to gain before deciding if I will believe them or not, and evidence is ALWAYS required for punishment against the sccused no matter who I believe, because I could always be wrong.

Thats the only way to not get turned into a flying monkey falling for lies and doing the bidding of a literally evil person (which makes you worse than simply not believing somebody who is right that didnt present enough evidence imho)
---

MrPeppers posted...

nicklebro posted...

You think so? I appreciate it very much because I know it will benefit me greatly.

If it were that easy to detach yourself from a bias, I'm not sure it would be much of a bias to begin with.

I never said it was easy, I just said I enjoy learning my biases because I know it will help me.

And while its impossible to be fully bias free all the time, it's quite easy to remain objective and neutral in short bursts. Like when discussing these kinds of issues.

I just really don't get why you say learning you biases made you depressed.

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

So no one is ever right? Or hell, even logical? Obviously everyone has biases but that doesn't make it impossible to be mindful of those biases and come to logical conclusions.

It's really, really not that simple.

Why can't you answer the question? Is it impossible to ever be objective or not? Saying it's not that simple is just pure fluff and seems more like you're either stalling or just trying to hide behind vague rhetoric and ambiguity.

I'd really like for you to give an explanation of I'm wrong. And dont try and dazzle me with unnecessarily complex concepts or uncommon scientific terms. One I've seen you do it many times so it's not going to work and two if you understand it as well as you're implying you do you should be able to describe it simply.

There's a term for what you do and it's called "French Pastry". See usually when someone is great at something, they will take something difficult and make it look easy. French Pastry is the opposite, you take something easy and make it look hard.
---

I'll make it simple, do you think all biases have root in conscious explicit decision making?

If you want to be patronizing, I'll be patronizing back. Answer that question and if you answer it correctly then you'll understand why your thought process was overly simplistic.
---

I asked my question first. Don't deflect. Just answer the question. Why are you making this so difficult?
---

It's not a deflection, it's guiding you to the answer.
---

COVxy posted...

It's not a deflection, it's guiding you to the answer.

It's quite clearly a deflection. I don't need to be guided to the answer, you just need to stop stalling and actually answer it. I know you are smart enough to be aware of how discussions go, and answering a question with a other question is a lame thing to do.

You're probably just too enveloped by your biases to answer the question objectively tho huh? Is that what you're trying to get at? That your own inherent biases that you quite obviously have in the subject exclude you from being able to discuss this topic logically and rationally?

Lol c'mon man. Maybe just stop acting like you're the smartest person in the world and consider the possibility that you're wrong here. Cuz you might just be wrong. You might be right too. But we'll never know if you keep playing these silly games instead of allowing the discussion to progress.

Im more than ready to admit I'm wrong if you have some kinda genius answer that gives me insight into the human mind that I never had before. Which is why I'm really curious as to what this answer truly is. But I'm starting to get skeptical hippo eyes after seeing how much deflecting you're doing.
---

If all biases aren't explicit, as in, many are implicit, how do you presuppose someone becomes aware of them and compensates for them, given the definition of implicit? It's very simple.

Most of the processing our brain does is implicit. If it wasn't, psychology and neuroscience would be unnecessary, as we would have an intuitive sense of how we are computing the things we think and perceive. When you are just looking at the screen reading these words, your brain is doing millions of computations to compensate for how little information it's actually getting. Imputing based on experience, i.e. biasing signals.

You know this is how my question connected back to your original statements, you just think that arguing that I'm being obtuse or obfuscating is the winning strategy. Let me inform you, it isn't.
---

It's very simple that you can discover your own implicit biases if you are consciously looking for them. But really you don't have to do that anyways.

And that cop out is getting so far way from the actual discussion that its bordering on irrelevancy.

There's a reason that even after all of that fluff, you still didn't answer my question. That's because we both know the answers is yes. If you make it your goal to be completely objective and purely logical when contemplating a specific issue, you don't even need to counter your own biases in order to be successful. You can literally negate biases altogether by being mindful of your thought process and analyzing each step along the way.

See you're trying to take a macro problem approach and applying it to a micro problem. Yeah it's likely impossible to remain completely objective at all times for the reasons you stated, but that doesn't apply when you're looking at the ability to look at a single issue completely objectively and logically.
---

I don't think you have a heavy grasp on biases, definitions of implicit and explicit, etc..

I can get you to overestimate a valuation of an object, let's say a painting, by simply shouting a random large number prior to your estimation. I can be very explicit in telling you that the number I'm going to state is completely irrelevant to this valuation problem, but you will still be more likely to overestimate it because of that irrelevant number. I can even tell you about this known bias, and you will still be more likely to overestimate it when I give you an irrelevant number prior to the valuation. Knowing that you have implicit biases does not counteract them, even if you are informed about them and are told to try to keep it in mind.
---

Much like how 'free speech' has been expanded and bastardised beyond all belief so people now see it as meaning 'be able to say anything at any time without repercussion', the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', something exclusively linked to hearings before a court of law, is now seen as meaning 'literally nothing is of merit until it goes through a strict criminal process'.
---