"In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system."
"The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook... The cost of disbelieving women, on the other hand, is far steeper." (read the whole thing)
17 comments:
That womyn is clinically insane...BEYOND a shadow of a doubt..
This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players.
In important ways, this is wrong.
I did not take this out of context. This is what this woman actually wrote. And she missed on the mitigation.
Best case scenario? This is some kind of sisterly solidarity.
I mean, that kind of thinking led to Salem Witch Trials and lynchings in the South. She ought to know better. Send her back to school or something.
"Send her back to school or something."
I guarantee you that's exactly where she learn it, and where she has the most success selling it.
In today's world we should generally believe that ignorance is most likely part of the curriculum at the alma mater of the ignorant.
Her answer to the disastrous consequences of trashing someone with a false accusation is "it doesn't happen that often".
So, it's all good.
I think I read on the internet somewhere that one out of four men will be falsely accused of rape.
"that kind of thinking led to Salem Witch Trials and lynchings in the South."
Which is a point that many people seem to forget with the current assault on the grand jury process, and it's being assaulted by the very people who should be most concerned about the abuse of charging people at will.
These men weren't accused of date rape. They were accused of gang raping an injured woman. The act she described is more typical of howling psychopaths than drunken frat rats. Shouldn't there be an extra level of fact checkng involved when there is an extra level of improbability?
The original WashPost headline was "automatically believe." They back pedaled.
"Automatically believe." is in line with Jacky not wanting a trial.
I don't mean to minimize the accusation of rape, but in the court of public opinion the reverse of presumed innocence is automatic guilt. So it appears that it might be easy for someone to claim rape or attack, but the accused has to eat the accusation? If that happened to me, I'd begin civil proceedings asap.
Read the whole thing.
No. Gracias pero no gracias, Yo tenía más que suficiente, I've had quite enough, thank you. *makes football ref sign for penalty declined, incomplete pass, missed field goal, no play*
For you see, my automatic filter activates, no twits allowed. And I needn't read anything, Their own comments over there take care of her nicely.
Rather, would you like to see something truly funny?
Okay. Drudge had an item yesterday for some reason known only to himself. He pointed to an outrageous drag queen.
I watched a few videos and he she is horrid as can be. Rude, crude, vile, dith-pickable language.
The first video she "read" someone from the audience who challenged her, something about "paying up" or "paying her dues," it was not so clear. She has the microphone and really let the guy have it.
The man happened to be Latino. I think the drag queen is ethnic too. After a series of videos I realized what is going on. A lot of the material is repeated.
The man had free tickets to the show and did not buy any drinks. That's how the place makes its money. Then presumes to address the drag queen about "paying up" or paying his share, or something incomprehensible." BOOM
She won $100,000 on Ru Paul's t.v. show Drag Race, the sixth season.
So that explains her reference to that. (In the end it's really $4.00)
She pulls people from the audience who are eager to play. 4 people. They wear wigs and one at a time attempt to play drag queen. Audience votes.
Not my cup of tea. I cannot imagine visiting nor enjoying such a show live.
But man, did these people have fun. Lesbians, straight people, gays, everyone gets abused and they love it.
All the spontaneous contestants were dreadful. But one chubby guy from Chile took all the abuse and had himself a real blast. He won the little show hands down. That was actually fun to watch.
Turned to Drag Race and watched a few videos to see Ru Paul's contestants interact.
So, finally awareness dawns, what the dealio is.
Several mentions of "In Bed With Joan Rivers."
I think you might enjoy this because he cracks up Joan Rivers. Extreme casual swears alert.
(2 ads) ugh.
The real guy, Roy Haylock
I recently listened to countless episodes of "Drag Race" because my wife and daughter binge-watched it.
I asked them if this show were the de facto replacement for the Joan Rivers enterprise...there were no denials.
Automatically believe? NO! Automatically respect and investigate? Yes! Big difference.
The act she described is more typical of howling psychopaths than drunken frat rats.
The act she described is a gang punishment usually meted out to racial or ethnic rivals. Otherwise, gang rape is quite often a gang punishment for the failure to pay a gambling debt on the part of the man attached to the woman victim.
Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.
...friends might defriend him on Facebook...
Really?
I mean REALLY???
Post a Comment