Paid Members Chris B Posted March 9 Paid Members Share Posted March 9 21 hours ago, Loki said: Shouldn’t we accept those findings? Otherwise how the hell does an innocent person ever prove their innocence? 21 hours ago, Loki said: It all ended up in an actual court which is exactly where these things should be judged. The number of sexual misconduct allegations that make it to court is shockingly low. But then you need to accept the outcome of the trial don’t you? If he’d been found guilty I think most people would have simply accepted that as the truth. You don't need to prove your innocence in court. Innocence is assumed. That's the entire basis of our legal system and, while it's the best we have, it's very far from perfect and lets down rape and sexual assault victims in particular. 'You need to accept the outcome of the trial' - well, no, you don't. Because the system isn't set up to make a decision - it's purely down to whether something was proved or not. And even then, there have been wrongful convictions as a result of that process (the Robert Brown case, for example). Because the system is imperfect, and so particularly lets down victims in crimes it's difficult or impossible to prove, some people take the default position of believing those who make accusations. That doesn't strike me as any more unreasonable than defaulting to a low conviction rate meaning that the majority of those accused were innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.