By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 29 September 2018
Edit Thread
PwerlvlAmy said:
sundin13 said:

The "Kavanaugh Precedent" relies on a large number of credible false accusers. While it is theoretically possible, I don't believe that it is practically likely enough to take the risk that the accusations in this particular case are true.

And of course, as you said "the counterargument is valid as well".  By plainly and visibly decrying to the country that if you accuse a powerful man of sexual assault, you will have every detail of your life picked apart, your family threatened, you will be shamed, doubted and accused of all manner of horrible deeds, you are telling victims to keep silent. By telling them that unless you have a written and notarized confession, you will not be believed and nothing will be done, you are telling them to keep silent. 

The role of the court is to protect the rights of the people. While explicitly that job is performed in the courtroom, I think this is equally impactful, though I suppose it is too late to do much about that one...

Its not telling them to be silent at all. Its telling them that if you're credible and can corroborate a case against the accused, you have a voice.

Right now the narrative being pushed is ''Believe all victims''. Which is extremely wrong. Its being pushed that women should be believed no matter what they say just because they're women. It sets up and gives women power  that we can say whatever we want,whenever we want,even if we cant prove said accusation is true and we have to believed no matter what. This will effect both men and women long term if its allowed to stand and continue. 

Unfortunately hard proof is virtually impossible in old cases. Unless you still have the semen inside of your body or on your clothing, it is difficult to really prove anything and even then, I'd say that most sexual assault cases come down to consent.

As far as the narrative of "Believe all Victims", I think the question is difficult because without proof either way (and assuming a Quantum Superposition-esque reality where truth exists in both contrasting states until a decision is observed), both parties are wronged. That sucks. But I think there are a few things to note. First of all, this isn't about women and men. This is about victim and actor (whether real or imaginary). Second, I do think we need to take some consideration for the potentially victimized party. This means there needs to be some degree of compromise. We shouldn't throw someone in jail as soon as someone utters an accusation, but we shouldn't immediately discard naked accusations (that is an accusation with no corresponding proof). We need to find a middle ground. Also, I think we need to consider that false accusations are generally considered to be a minority of accusations in general.

Additionally, you say that believe victims will effect both men and women. So does disbelieving victims. We already see the influence that this way of thinking has. We have seen it for years in the silence of rape victims, and the fear, and the mistreatment by the courts and the police systems. We see it in workplace sexual harassment and the belief that some people hold, that they have a right to your body, or that your body only serves as a sexual stimulus for them. This is already doing harm. While it is fine to acknowledge the dangers of the other extreme, we need to acknowledge that things are not good right now. Potential future issues that may or may not come to pass should not serve as a reason to not work to fix the problem we have with sexual abuse.