Why do people assume once a person is accused of a crime, he or she is automatically guilty without a trial?

[Sonic_Spork]

I don't think that there is any area of crime where the "guilty until proven innocent" in public opinion scenario is so very prevalent, as sexual crime.

So I'm going to answer the question based on sexual crimes specifically.

There are several reasons that we have this problem around this kind of crime.

I think that the first, is that even in cases where there is a preponderance of evidence, actual real evidence, the offender rarely receives a sentence that feels "just." We grow up hearing the word, "rape" spoken in the same company as murder, as far as being a very serious crime with very real harm done to people. Not a victimless crime, not a property crime. Many people watch shows and films (Law & Order SVU being one of the more prevalent) which depict investigations into sex crimes very unrealistically. The reality is that there are many rape kits that never get analyzed, and many cases where nothing much happens after a report is made, and plenty more where even if a conviction manages to be had, the offender doesn't serve much time, or any. If the offender is a white man, of middling or better means, then the odds that justice will be served dwindle even more, especially if he is known in his community by anyone for having done anything good or noteworthy. It's like society desperately seeks reasons to let him off the hook. I know countless women who have been done far greater harm than good, by reporting rape to the authorities. One I recently spoke to, reported ongoing harassment and stalking by her rapist, and in court proceedings her address was given to him by an attorney, so thereafter he would stalk her and send others to stalk her. He violated a restraining order multiple times. It was reported. No action was taken.

I think that a frustrated sense of helplessness, that there is little satisfaction with the judicial process and its results even in strong cases, is part of this issue.

Then there is the fact that it's difficult at times to have good proof. Sexual assault is often done by people that victims know, even relatives in their own homes. The offender might use a condom and leave no physical evidence. But even if one can prove that sex happened, how to prove it was non-consensual? With no witnesses, which is often the case, you come down to character and he-said/she-said situations. So even in a best case scenario where a victim is emotionally capable of going and getting a rape kit...and even if it did get tested...there is still the matter of proving lack of consent.

I think that MOST cases of sexual assault come down to he-said/she-said and character wars. Based on that.

Victims know very well that odds of getting real justice, are slim. They don't usually have the emotional resources in the wake of personal trauma, to go through the battle of trying to fight their way through the system, to even try, especially when the return on investment is likely to be nil. And then there is the factor that kept me from calling the cops on an abusive partner for instance...I would say, to people who suggested it, "They won't keep him forever." One day he would be free, probably soon, and no restraining order would stop him if he wanted to kill me. An act of which he was capable...and so what if he would be caught? If he was ready to do that, he was ready to end himself or flee, but I'd be dead nonetheless. So if you know that you will have to fight tooth and nail to seek justice, odds are you won't get it, and even if you do, one day your assailant will be free to seek revenge...is it worth it to report?

So I think that a lot of people...we want to do right for victims because we feel for them, knowing all of this. Knowing how hard it is, how brave you've got to be, to step up and say something. I mean, if it ends up known to the public that you made an accusation, it's a near guarantee you will get death threats. Angry people will come after you, calling you a liar. So if we care about victims enough that we don't want to re-traumatize them...then we take the stance of believing them. It divides people neatly into those who defend victims and those who defend alleged perpetrators. It shows starkly where one's natural sympathies lie.

Because presuming an alleged rapists innocence, is presuming an alleged victim's guilt.

The only other kind of thing that I feel similarly about, is police brutality. Mostly in the sense that people assume victims did something to deserve it, and because even if there is evidence--VIDEO EVIDENCE--the cops who brutalize, assault, even kill people, get away with it. Sure they might be put on "administrative leave" or even lose their jobs. But they don't get tried in court and face sentencing or jailtime or anything like non-police personnel do. They are above the law, and it's wrong. If ordinary people do these things, especially if they are persons of color, the courts throw the book at them. So if someone tells me a story about a cop beating them, raping them, shooting their pets, stealing their property...I'm fairly inclined to believe it, with no real need to hear the cop's side of the story. I am biased by too many stories, and the "way things are."

[animalcrazy]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

It's not even just that he may have done these things, it's that it speaks to his attitude toward women. This is a man who is about to get a lifetime appointment to a court that will be deciding many issues that affect women, from Title 9 to Roe vs Wade. What he thinks about women matters.

I find his views on Roe v Wade disturbing as well, but his lack of honesty is just as bad. You might find this article interesting in Vox: "The Judge Pryor controversy around Brett Kavanaugh,explained."

In 2004 Kavanaugh emails allege that he was involved with handling the nomination of Judge William Pryor who currently sits on the 11th court of appeals. That covers Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. He was also on Trump's short list for the supreme court. Pryor states Roe v Wade: "The worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." Kavanaugh is distancing himself from any knowledge about working on that nomination.



As a side note in tricky Trump fashion. While the news narrative is focused on the drama of the day, Trump and his cronies in the house passed another 3,1 trillion dollar tax cut on Friday. It would add another 600 billion to the national debt in ten years. Lets hope the senate has more sense.

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by animalcrazy

I find his views on Roe v Wade disturbing as well, but his lack of honesty is just as bad. You might find this article interesting in Vox: "The Judge Pryor controversy around Brett Kavanaugh,explained."

In 2004 Kavanaugh emails allege that he was involved with handling the nomination of Judge William Pryor who currently sits on the 11th court of appeals. That covers Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. He was also on Trump's short list for the supreme court. Pryor states Roe v Wade: "The worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." Kavanaugh is distancing himself from any knowledge about working on that nomination.



As a side note in tricky Trump fashion. While the news narrative is focused on the drama of the day, Trump and his cronies in the house passed another 3,1 trillion dollar tax cut on Friday. It would add another 600 billion to the national debt in ten years. Lets hope the senate has more sense.

Good grief! This is all BS to help the midterms cause they know the first tax cut benefited the rich vs the middle class. If it passes we can pretty much wave bye-bye to Medicare, Medicaid and SS as we know them.