Discussion
@budududuroiu @chiraag @QasimRashid the relevant identity-based presumption is that it’s reasonable to doubt all testimony from women, and the people who suffer from that are primarily women who are victims of crimes that are rarely prosecuted.
I haven’t seen anyone call for a change in standards for conviction, only to drop that presumption when deciding what to investigate and what charges to pursue, and to stigmatize demonization of victims rather than victims
@budududuroiu @ShadSterling @QasimRashid Everything you have argued presumes that somehow there wasn't enough of a case here. So there seems to be a presumption that "the system" treated her claim fairly and simply decided there wasn't enough to prosecute.
I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption. At all. We have ample evidence of people getting away with rape and never being held accountable (see: current POTUS, several SCOTUS appointees, SecDef, etc etc).
@budududuroiu @ShadSterling @QasimRashid You repeatedly seem to give 'the system' the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they would convict if they had enough evidence. That assumes they even *looked* for evidence and that they believed her in the first place, both of which are dubious assumptions.
@chiraag What 'system' are you talking about? Conviction is based on a jury of one's peers, specifically so that criminal trials aren't decided by 'the system'. It's in the DAs interest to win as many easy and high-profile cases, since you make it seem like the the conviction is a foregone conclusion.
Both Hegseth and Kavanaugh faced allegations that were never tried. Having no standard of proof, no cross-examination by lawyers, and no discovery process is a poor example to point to say "get away with rape".
The only principle I'm defending is that nobody, in any case, gets labelled a criminal before the evidence has been tested. I think this is foundational to liberal democracy. Again, as I mentioned before, NY has no statute of limitations on first-degree rape. Surfacing evidence in a civil case, or surfacing new evidence decades later, which can reopen a criminal suit is, imo, infinitely better than acquittal on weak evidence and closing the door on criminal charges forever.
You need to log in to see that page.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
@ShadSterling you seem to think I'm arguing against believing women, or for more scrutiny on women's testimonies. I'm not. First, if the standards of conviction stay the same, we can't have "known criminals" before a jury convicts, so you either want to drop the presumption of innocence, or you agree with me that a trial should be brought forward, with evidence that a crime occurred beyond reasonable doubt. If we agree on that, then charging cases DAs expect to lose doesn't help victims. It produces acquittals, and after an acquittal they can never be retried, even if better evidence surfaces later.
@chiraag @QasimRashid