Which is why we’re talking about the crime in general rather than just instances where the rich and famous are accused. With the rich and famous while there’d potentially be more reason to make false claims, the level of attention given to accusers, and the level of legal defence the accused can afford work against the accuser.
Meanwhile in China…
Because I don’t want to have troubles with the law, especially as it is phrased, it assumes you are immediately guilty; the social climate is that abuser is usually male (but with very few exceptions) and you have to prove your innocence after. What happened in few cases is that some married women deliberately called police so they can be with their lover (not husband). Also I do know that in sometimes people reconciled, whether someone stepped out of the line once.
I’ll be sharing this with a gay colleague tomorrow so she can then put out out across the work LGBTQ network.
It’s a great project and article Mike.
How many is a few? I’d guess that those benefiting from the rule (in being protected from abusive partners) vastly outnumber the poor saps you mention above. The enforcing of no law is perfect.
We’re not all alive. A lot of people are dead.
Wether or not the majority of people are evil, I don’t think it plays any role in determination of truth. We don’t know who is good and who is evil, so we can’t judge whose statements we should believe or not.
Are you a good person, Andrew? I’m not. I’m a bad boy.
But surely the legal system works on multiple sources corroborating the same incident?
If you’re accused of taking my money, could the prosecution put up a witness who saw you stealing someone else’s money a year previously? Maybe you did do that, but that’s not admissable evidence in my case, surely?
I really am. I’ve never hit anyone. I help people in need. I give cash to beggars. Donate to charities. Put water and seed out for birds. Look after stray pets.
You have to go out of your way to be bad.
Sure it is. It establishes a pattern.
I am not sure if those are the definite criteria for determining good or evil. Still it opens up the possibility that there are bad people in the world, like the people who don’t donate to charities. How many bad people would you say there are? Obviously there are enough to get people to give false testimonies, we see that all the time.
Unless we have some method to determine which people are incapable of lying due to their superior moral character I think you can’t take eyewitness testimonies at their word. Most people wouldn’t lie to hurt someone, but some do. If you are going to believe everybody because most people wouldn’t lie, you might as well say you can never jail someone for rape because most people wouldn’t rape.
That’s not the point at all.
The fact is institutions generally don’t take people at their word in cases of sexual violence - if they absolutely consistently did the two people I mentioned upthread would have seen their rapists imprisoned.
And you can’t believe everybody because that would be believing two contradicting claims.
Eyewitness accounts typically form part of a range of evidence provided in many cases. They can’t be discounted completely.
So if I’m on a jury and the man on trial has recently completed a jail term for another, completely unrelated crime, I’m going to vote him guilty because there’s a pattern?
I’m not disputing that’s so, because I have no idea how it works in reality. But I dispute that it’s a fair way to treat a man in what’s supposed to be an evidence-based legal system.
There are lots of rules about what juries are allowed to know about previous convictions (and especially unproved accusations) for exactly that reason, to prevent prejudicing a trial.
One of the hardest experiences I ever had as part of my legal training was working with the defence team for a man accused of rape. His accuser gave a very detailed account of the attack (including how he had threatened her with a scimitar, an object which prompted her to collapse in tears when it was produced as evidence in the courtroom). Ultimately however there was not sufficient evidence to convict and the case failed.
The jury had not been allowed to know that the details of the accusation were incredibly similar to details of previous rape allegations made against the same man (including the nature of the attack, specific things he said, and the weapon used), which also failed to result in convictions.
They were the right decisions by the law, but I didn’t feel good about it.
Changing the topic but still relevant to the thread I think… here’s a story of diversity in pre-modern society.
Well, almost. I wouldn’t use the word “vast”, as it is near, tho. But law must be phrased so that everyone can be protected, who didn’t do something he or she shouldn’t.
But, this what ArjanDikse wrote. How you determine someone is good or evil. How do we know if someone is good, or abuser? We live in times where a accused is immediately abuser (especially if he is a male). Or maybe he just snapped then, but normally wouldn’t do it.
Now, to get back on the celebrities. I believe it did became a routine to target them, as Jim said. Maybe it’s some weird fanatic thing (I watched The Fan lately and Wesley Snipes perfectly described those “fans”).
And what about Sly? He got accused twice (not by same person). The first time it’s dropped because his then wife refuted the claims; the second time, the charge is dropped because there wasn’t any witnesses to corroborate the allegiation. Now, Sly filed a police report on that person for lying.
One is the way crime is tracked in the UK (and could be in many other countries too, I just know how it works there).
There are problems in only recording arrest or conviction rates as police can basically game the system - increase convictions by going in hard or even in extreme cases fitting people up or reduce crime rates by doing the opposite and turning a blind eye. So they have a second measure called the National Crime Survey, an extensive operation where they ask people if they have been the victims of crime in anonymous questionnaires.
(To give an example I was burgled in 2003 but not much was taken and I was stupid as I forgot to lock the back door, I didn’t call the police as I would have voided any insurance payout by not securing the property and it’s unlikely they’d have caught anyone, so a crime was committed and not recorded).
In the NCS they find a large disparity between police recorded cases of rape and sexual assault and what appears on the survey (nobody has anything to gain by lying in the survey, nobody is named and it just adds to a data set). That’s where you get the figures that around 70-80% of rapes are never reported. The conviction rate in England and Wales if they are reported is around 7%, which is a reason many may feel it not worth going through the ordeal.
Good: Others feel safe and positive around this individual. It is proven by a lifetime without imprisonment nor bad reputation.
Bad: Hurts self and others, prefers to hurt others, treats others as objects and believes they are owed the very best in life.
It’s not objective, it is social. “Good” versus “bad” boils down to what others will tolerate from the worst of the group. (Does not depend on the size of the group.) “Good” rarely even gets recognition nor acknowledgement. “Bad” always results in others affected by the behavior to get together and ask “What re we going to do about so-and-so?”
“Bad” is behavior seen as something that needs to be stopped, or never exist in the first place.
“Good” is the social ideal, and one can never attain it due to constant irritation by the bad behavior of others.
I love that scene!!