Believe all victims?

aslfingerspell · 2024-02-22T01:59:17+00:00

Should this man have faced consequences for an accusation alone?

As a victim of SA myself I've spent a lot of time on issues like this, and feel like I can clarify a lot of things for everyone.

First up is a hard truth about the legal system. Witness testimony is evidence, and it's utterly mundane for cases to turn on an "accusation" or one person's word against another's. Everywhere, in courtrooms every single day, in civil and criminal cases alike, somebody is testifying against someone else, and people's lives are changed based on who the judge or jury believes. A landlord against a tenant ("He promised he wouldn't increase rent this year." "No I didn't."), a police officer against a suspect ("I smelled a strong odor of alcohol on his breathe." "I wasn't drinking."), or two drivers ("I had the green." "No, I had the green."), you get the idea.

Even "hard" or "real" evidence ultimately comes down to witness testimony. Do you think photographs, video footage, DNA, etc gets into courtrooms as-is? No. You want to bring the murder weapon or bag of coke into the courtroom, the prosecution is probably going to put on chain-of-custody witnesses. Lab technicians might have to testify about how a test was performed, police officers might have to testify about properly maintaining their radar gun or breathalyzer, photographs and video footage would need someone to testify it accurately depicts the scene, and so on.

Almost all evidence, even "hard" evidence, boils down to "Because someone said so." You have a photograph, in HD quality, that clearly shows the defendant stabbing the victim. How do you know it's not faked? Because the because the experts who inspected the photograph and camera say it's real. Pretty much every piece of evidence is going to be "He said, she said." with extra steps. We're in a business dispute and you have the original contract I signed...because you put on witnesses who said they saw me sign it, and because a handwriting expert testified that it was my signature, and because security camera footage (the proper functioning of the cameras testified to by security guard) shows me in your office signing the paperwork.

Authenticity vs. Weight vs. Sufficiency of Evidence vs. Burden of Proof.

Another thing to note is that "believe all victims" doesn't mean throwing out the presumption of innocence or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Presumption of innocence is about your starting position, whereas beyond reasonable doubt goes to the weight or sufficiency of evidence, and because believing a victim is about the authenticity of their evidence. TL;DR you can believe someone is telling the truth (or at least not actively lying) while also thinking it's not enough evidence to convict.

If someone is convicted on weak evidence, that doesn't undermine the presumption of innocence. It just means that presumption was easily overcome, and the issue was that the evidence should have been better. If someone is in jail because another person said "They're guilty I guess.", the correct complaint would be "This is insufficient evidence.", not "These days it's like we're guilty until proven innocent."

I understand the sentiment of "I don't like being treated like a criminal when I haven't been convicted yet.", but it's important to be clear about what we're complaining about. If you think the evidence against someone is weak, then it's more accurate to just say that. Something like "guilty until proven innocent" is an exaggeration: that would only be the case if the prosecution literally had to put on no evidence at all to convict, which is plainly untrue. In fact, there are multiple safeguards in the criminal justice system to prevent just this very thing: preliminary hearings are about whether there is "probable cause" to move the case forward, and in a trial itself there may be a "motion for directed verdict" where the defense argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. This comes after the prosecution puts on their evidence, but before the defense begins their case. Quite literally, criminal trials can end before the defense case even starts, if the prosecution's evidence really was that flimsy.

Now onto authenticity and truth.

"Believe all victims" doesn't necessarily mean that the word of a victim alone should be enough to say something happened with 100% factual certainty, but rather it's to rebut the stigma and assumption that victims are liars out to destroy innocent lives. There is no contradiction between "believing all victims" and still making reasonable decisions in acquitting criminal defendants, the same reason you can "believe all photographs" or "believe all lab reports" or "believe all fingerprint samples" and still have reasonable doubt to acquit.

I can show you a photograph of a bank robber, but if it's kind of blurry and hard to see their face, you can say there's reasonable doubt to acquit the defendant. You believe the photograph is authentic, that it's not faked, but also that it's not enough to convict.

Same thing with witnesses. "Believe all victims" doesn't mean "Uncritically convict every single person on accusations alone." It simply means that we give victims of rape the same basic respect to their story we'd give victims of any other crime: nobody hears someone on the news talk about their house being robbed, and sneers "There's two sides to every story." or "I'm sure they invited the guy over and are just crying burglary when they regretted it later." We truly believe something bad happened, that they are in fact a victim, but we can still say that we'd want more before sending the robbery suspect to prison.

You can see somebody burst into tears on the stand and say that someone raped them, and truly believe them, but you may also feel there's just one too many contradictions in their story (even taking trauma into account) to be sure about conviction the defendant. You believe them, but you have your reasonable doubt.

bluestjuice · 2024-02-22T01:30:28+00:00

So, I am not a lawyer, much less a military lawyer, but what I’m reading here is that the civil case was dropped, and that the military investigation into the matter’s findings fell short of court martial but warranted a formal censure and discharge under these terms.

Your series of questioning is interesting and may well bear fruitful discussion, but I’m curious why you are certain that the military investigation didn’t have additional facts upon which it based its ruling, that aren’t enumerated within the document.

ta06012022 · 2024-02-22T01:42:27+00:00

Should this man have faced consequences for an accusation alone? Or should they have only taken action after there was an outcome.

He wasn’t discharged after an accusation alone. He was discharged after a military trial (court-martial), which found there was sufficient evidence of misconduct to discharge him. You may not like that the military effectively has its own legal system, but that’s how it is in the US.

Just because charges are dropped in criminal court doesn’t mean that the military can’t proceed with its own evaluation of the evidence. Further, the bar for discharge is lower than the bar for conviction in criminal court. Activity that is less than criminal may be deemed misconduct.

toasterchild · 2024-02-22T14:43:13+00:00

"Given the totality of the circumstances the Board concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense committed by the member brought discredit to the Air Force, and when weighed against the overall record of performance, warranted the characterization of discharge received. "

So basically they felt there was enough evidence to determine continuing employment of this person wasn't worth the risk. That's not the same as being wrongfully convicted. There also isn't any proof that this was a false accusation, why are we assuming it was?

singlesyoga · 2024-02-22T03:15:36+00:00

We don’t know what the “preponderance of evidence” that the military described was

And the military has its own law and conduct standards. If they decide that merely being accused dishonors their institution, that is their right

You can’t be sued for not proving your case, you can be sued for lying

Of course lying is criminal, that’s why it’s a crime

MiddleZealousideal89 · 2024-02-22T02:10:38+00:00

Me no brain good today so apologies in advance if anything I write makes you scratch you head and go ''huh''.

Should this man have faced consequences for an accusation alone? Or should they have only taken action after there was an outcome

I don't know if he was discharged solely because of the accusation, or for other things uncovered during the investigation that made him look bad in the eyes of the Air Force. But if you're asking if someone should face consequences for an accusation alone in general, I think they shouldn't but I'd also understand an organization letting someone go if there were serious accusations made against them. If someone accuses a teacher of inappropriate behavior, even if there is no proof that they did something, that accusation would make it difficult for them to be trusted by the parents.

If we assume the man was falsely accused, what should he have done to protect himself?

Probably not to have engaged in casual sex, since crazy and/or shitty people who might take rejection the wrong way exist. That's the ''don't put yourself in potentially dangerous situations'' line of general advice. But it's not like someone can avoid all crazy and/or shitty people even if they're super careful, so I don't think the guy could have really done anything in this case.

If the woman was telling the truth, what should she have done to protect herself?

Probably not to engage in casual sex, since crazy and/or shitty people who don't accept rejection exist. That's the ''don't put yourself in potentially dangerous situations'' line of general advice. But it's not like someone can avoid all crazy and/or shitty people even if they're super careful, so I don't think the guy could have really done much in this case, other than maybe not to have gone to his place if it was a first date.

Say this man wanted to take this woman to court. Should she be made to pay him $100,000 (about what he lost in benefits) if she's unable to prove her case?

If it's a ''he said, she said'' kind of deal, and neither party had evidence to back up their case other than their word, then this would just disincentivize victims from ever reporting any case unless they were beaten bloody and/or had video/audio evidence/eyewitnesses of what happened. But I'm no lawyer, so I'd be open to hearing any info from an actual legal professional about how such a civil case would go.

Do you agree or disagree that false allegations have the potential to ruin someones life?

Yes, false allegations have the potential of ruining someone's life. The issue is that it's hard to say if something is a false accusation if we're taking all cases that were dropped for lack of evidence, or an unwillingness of the presumed victim to testify and lumping them in with the cases of ''this asshole blatantly lied and got caught''.

As for the title of your post - Yes, believe all victims who come forward enough to conduct a thorough, unbiased investigation of what they're alleging.

fiftypoundpuppy · 2024-02-22T01:58:25+00:00

If I was going to make a post about false allegations, I probably would have used a case about an actually proven false allegation. But that's just me.

Should this man have faced consequences for an accusation alone? Or should they have only taken action after there was an outcome

It's going to vary depending on the situation. If there's a nurse who is consistently present during abnormal spikes in codes, I don't think she should be allowed unsupervised access to further patients until a review is completed. I think a suspension with pay is appropriate.

I wouldn't have advocated a discharge based on an accusation. But action should be taken to remove authority until it has been investigated as a precaution. If I took my dog to a vet where someone was accused of abusing animals, I certainly would want that person forbidden from caring for them until it has been investigated. Remove the authority/potential for harm but continue paying the individual so that they can still live in the meantime.

If we assume the man was falsely accused, what should he have done to protect himself?

Fucking strangers is always a risk. I believe the risk is lower for a false accusation with people you know and have some level of trust with.

If the reason given was true, then being open and transparent from the jump that he wasn't interested in anything serious.

I'm only answering this because you asked. Ultimately I don't think the victim of an intentional false accusation is to blame for it. There's no excuse or justification to falsely accuse someone of a crime.

If the woman was telling the truth, what should she have done to protect herself?

Vet / not fuck strangers I guess? But most sexual assault is committed by people we know, so... I guess never interact with men unless absolutely necessary.

I'm only answering this because you asked. Ultimately I don't think the victim of a crime is to blame for it.

Say this man wanted to take this woman to court. Should she be made to pay him $100,000 (about what he lost in benefits) if she's unable to prove her case?

It's not up to her to prove her case in a criminal court, it's the prosecutor.

And if being found "not guilty" is reason enough to claim an accusation was false, well then I guess OJ didn't do it and should sue Nicole and Ron's families.

She should be made to pay damages if she is charged and convicted of a false accusation. Not because there wasn't enough evidence, or the jury didn't find her a sympathetic enough victim.

And I'm still not sure what her being previously assaulted and on medication has to do with anything at all.

MyLastBestChance · 2024-02-22T01:28:45+00:00

Why do you assume that this was a false accusation?

theReaders · 2024-02-22T01:23:21+00:00

it means "believe until given reason not to" also this post idiotic

GGMcThroway · 2024-02-22T01:34:12+00:00

Most accusations are not false. The issue is that due process and the nature of sex crimes makes it extremely difficult to convict a man for sex crimes.

Do you agree or disagree that false allegations have the potential to ruin someones life?

I think that actually getting raped is more likely to ruin a person's life that getting falsely accused. False accusations generally don't result in convictions. There's no way to undo getting raped.

GojosLowerHalf2 · 2024-02-22T01:47:35+00:00

From a rational standpoint unless this is a celebrity what does the average woman get from falsely accusing an average man of rape that could possibly outweigh the mental and physical labor that comes from pursuing a rape charge?

EricSec · 2024-02-22T02:40:04+00:00

I know multiple people who have been falsely accused of rape. I also know people who have been raped. The fact is that some bad people are men, and some are women. There is a reason for having due process, but sometimes, the legal system just fails.

Yveskleinsky · 2024-02-22T03:13:02+00:00

So a few questions:

Should this man have faced consequences for an accusation alone? Or should they have only taken action after there was an outcome?

From what I understand, he was discharged from the Military due to a "preponderance of evidence" and not just on the accusation alone. We don't know what that evidence is as it's not listed in this report, but it was enough evidence to meet the burden of proof standard. Since the victim reported the SA to the local authorities, and assuming she reported the SA within a few days of it happening, they would have done a rape kit. They would have also more than likely asked her for her phone and retrieved any messages/calls between the two of them.

If we assume the man was falsely accused, what should he have done to protect himself?

Lawyer up.

If the woman was telling the truth, what should she have done to protect herself?

Meet in a public place, go slow and do a vibe check. As far as after the SA, ideally, go straight to the police without showering and have a rape kit done. ...But the reality is lots of predatory people don't come across as threatening or creepy. They often know enough of the right things to say to get someone to lower their guard. As far as going to the police and getting a rape kit done, often times victims are in shock and go into the freeze response. They aren't thinking clearly. And even if they were, having a rape kit done is really invasive. They cut all of the clothes off the victim. They do an internal exam and take pictures. LOTS of deeply personal questions are asked. ...And that's just the rape kit part of this.

Then there's officers that follow up with you, that ask more deeply personal questions. After gathering all that info, the victim will most likely be debriefed on what to expect moving forward--meaning, they would testify, have to face the rapist in court, their name and details of what happened would be heard and/or made public to some degree. People in their personal life start taking sides and judging them for the actions they did or didn't take, shame, embarrassment, anger, trauma, etc. ...It's a lot.

Say this man wanted to take this woman to court. Should she be made to pay him $100,000 (about what he lost in benefits) if she's unable to prove her case?

Well, but there was enough evidence to prove her case even without going to trial. According to the document, there was a preponderance of evidence that led to him getting discharged.

Do you agree or disagree that false allegations have the potential to ruin someones life?

Absolutely! False allegations are incredibly damaging.

Cethlinnstooth · 2024-02-22T03:33:10+00:00

The military sometimes has standards that are different to those outside the military. For example cheating on your spouse is in some militaries viewed as misconduct. I'm assuming that in defending himself against an accusation of rape he confessed fairly conclusively to other things that were misconduct by the standards of the military tribunal.

My opinion on it is that if you don't join the military you don't interact that way with military tribunals. I have never joined the military and military tribunals are one reason why. They're not like ordinary civilian justice and never will be. And they don't tend to give two shits how they came by evidence.

bifewova234 · 2024-02-22T05:34:40+00:00

They're using the preponderance of the evidence standard. This is a low burden of proof but there's no discussion in the document about the evidence against him. Yet, that the local DA had been moving forward with a prosecution suggests they thought they had evidence beyond reasonable doubt. They usually dont prosecute unless they think they will win. So, you say its just the girl's word against his? Nothing other than that? How you know?

nemma88 · 2024-02-22T13:00:57+00:00

Should this man have faced consequences for an accusation alone?

I don't think it was because of the accusation alone. The document says it was all weighed against his overall record of performance, and two separate conduct entities thought discharge was just.

I would guess these don't have the same standards as criminal courts.

John_Oakman · 2024-02-22T01:51:01+00:00

Generally speaking the more popular/well liked party is believed over the less popular/liked one. This is why both most rapes (and other SA crimes) being unprosecuted & lot of false accusations being true simultaneously.

The trial by jury [of peers] (and really all court systems) is only as effective as the people within it, and most people still operates on certainly primal, if not tribal, mentalities.

alebruto · 2024-02-22T01:45:50+00:00

A liar that make false accusation is not a victim.

Valuable-Marzipan761 · 2024-02-22T06:12:22+00:00

No-one should face concequences on an accusation alone generally. There was a job locally working with disabled children, where even a rumour would disqualify you which i think is good.

It's fair that the criteria for sacckng someone should be less than a criminal prosecution though. There's a misconception that in cases like these that the defendant was "proven innocent", when really they just couldn't be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

GojosLowerHalf2 · 2024-02-22T01:43:29+00:00

From a rational standpoint unless this is a celebrity what does the average woman get from falsely accusing an average man of rape that could possibly outweigh the mental and physical labor that comes from pursuing a rape charge?

Should this man have faced consequences for an accusation alone? Or should they have only taken action after there was an outcome

Yes because he could do it again.

If we assume the man was falsely accused, what should he have done to protect himself?

I don't know. Maybe don't have sex with Shady people I suppose?

If the woman was telling the truth, what should she have done to protect herself?

Have a gun.

Say this man wanted to take this woman to court. Should she be made to pay him $100,000 (about what he lost in benefits) if she's unable to prove her case?

Absolutely not. A lot of rapes can't be "physically proven". Even with DNA the man could just say it was consensual sex.

Do you agree or disagree that false allegations have the potential to ruin someones life?

Yes but rationally there's no reason for there to be that many false rape accusations. I wish the men on this sub understood how ridiculous they sound trying to make this sound like a widespread issue.

MattPayneWrestler · 2024-02-22T02:25:32+00:00

People Saying that “statistics show false accusations are rare, therefore lets make it ‘guilty until proven innocent’ “ is pretty stupid.

Thats as stupid as saying “when I drop my wallet on the floor but stand there and guard it, statistically no one seems to steal it, therefore no one would steal if i drop it and leave and come back.

if making false accusations doesn’t work, people won’t use that, but if it does work , then vindictive people will use it.

And I hate when they say “believe victims.” How do you know the other guy isn’t a victim of false accusations? Just whoever accuses first is the good guy? Like the wild west, whoever draws the accusation gun first wins? So stupid! How about “believe evidence” cause newsflash: any fool could say anything!

“believe victims” or “believe women” is just the sugarcoated way of saying: “We want guilty until proven innocent! We want as many innocent people to be punished as necessary till we get a bad guy!”

All I gotta say to these ppl is “happy belated birthday , cause you mustve been born yesterday, but here on earth...PEOPLE LIE! ALOT!”

Its pretty despicable how dedicated they are to punishing innocent people and its disturbing to know that these people may have or may one day serve on a jury.

favabeansandwine · 2024-02-22T16:46:09+00:00

Believe no victims. Collect evidence and follow due process.

#womenarehuman

#humanslie

#fuckfeminism

JohnStamos_55 · 2024-02-22T01:47:18+00:00

Ignoring the nonsense women spew on the internet will do you much good

AutoModerator · 2024-02-22T01:21:00+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Zabadoodude · 2024-02-22T02:09:47+00:00

Different circumstances require different standards of proof to decide if someone should be treated as guilty.

When it comes to criminal convictions the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I think this is good. I would rather 10 rapists go free than 1 innocent man be sent to prison for rape. Same goes for murder, and all other crimes.

When it comes to personal and business relationships, people have freedom of association and have a right to set their own standards of proof as they see fit. That can mean that an accusation alone is enough for them to stop associating with someone.

I think government funded institutions like the military or public universities should have a fairly high burden of proof before they expell someone. Higher than just an accusation, but maybe not as high as the criminal courts.

In the example you gave he can sue his accuser, but he will have to prove that she made it up, which is usually very difficult.

Overall there is no perfect system. "Believe all victims" is stupid because people sometimes lie, but "always treat someone accused of rape as if nothing happened" is also unreasonable.

The best way to protect yourself against false accusations is to not stick your dick in crazy. There is no way someone about to make false rape accusations is going to act totally normal. Maybe go on a few dates first and try to get a sense of what she's like. It's not 100% effective, but it's a small risk you have to take if you don't want to be alone and celibate.

63daddy · 2024-02-22T04:39:19+00:00

The thing is, until a verdict has been reached, it’s not known which party is the victim. Assuming the accuser is the victim before that’s been proven is incredibly biased.

FormerBabyPerson · 2024-02-22T20:32:03+00:00

Should’ve only face consequences if there was an outcome
Not sure. I don’t think there’s anything you can do to 100% protect yourself even if you get to know someone
Again nothing 100% but get to know someone outside first
Yes she should be made to pay him.
Of course they do

apresonly · 2024-02-22T21:19:29+00:00

the phrase you're criticizing is "believe victims" not "believe all victims"

obviousredflag · 2024-02-23T10:13:18+00:00

I don't see how the board cannot come to a different ruling than the non-military instances. It's an unclear situation, that's why the charges were dropped. Military has different perspectives on that, including the "the offense committed by the member brought discredit to the Air Force" part. Regardless of if it happened or not, the damage was done and to protect the air force from further possible discredit, he was discharged.

At least that is what i take from it. Of course, having negative outcomes for false accusations is terrible. But every party needs to do what they need to do, as long as it's within their legal framework. Apparently, what the board did was within the bounds of what is appropriate. It's really not that important if we think "poor guy, how unfair is life?!".

Believe all victims?

FACTS

Claims

Comments

the judge threw away the case because the lady signed the dude into her dorm and made sexual gestures behind his back. You have no way of proving that once inside the dorm she said “no don’t do this!” And he stuck it in any way.

Title	Believe all victims?
Author	FutureBannedAccount2
Upvotes	1
Comments	257
Date	February 22, 2024 1:21 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1awtkth/believe_all_victims/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/believe-all-victims.1246082 https://theredarchive.com/post/1246082