[deleted]
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 2 days ago
Ah, yes, ye Olde “just believe them” attitude.
No one would ever lie for personal gain, right?
I don’t “believe” claims that have significant impact - that requires evidence. Which is the basis of our legal system.
Just wait till you’ve been wrongfully accused about something and have to stand before a judge. It’s no fun, and you’ll be grateful then that evidence is required.
Poayjay@lemmy.world 2 days ago
ech@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
How does “We wouldn’t need [evidence] if society just trusted women” fit your argument?
november@lemmy.vg 2 days ago
The Epstein list isn’t the only evidence they would find.
Also, if women’s testimony isn’t good enough, why is a list written by a man good enough?
ech@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Evidence directly from the suspect(s) is basically a confession. Gender has nothing to do with it.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 days ago
We wouldn’t need [evidence]
Being in the Epstein log books isn’t evidence of sexual assault comparable to simply listening to Virginia Giuffre.
And, ffs, Testimony Is Evidence. If a woman says “I’ve been raped, that’s the guy who did it”, that’s evidence of the accused committing a rape.
merc@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
According to OP “We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.”
So, believing women is proof, and not only proof, but proof so strong that we wouldn’t even need the Epstein files. You might think that believing women doesn’t mean convicting every person who is accused, but OP sure seems to think so.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 2 days ago
So, you’re saying don’t believe them? Because if you believe them, then the accused is guilty, end of story.
LePoisson@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I mean I don’t think 25 women would lie about stuff that would be slander or libel when it comes to someone as litigious and thin skinned as Trump.
Not much evidence you can provide when it’s one person’s word over another. Only thing I can say is he never won a libel suit against his accusers as far as I know.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 2 days ago
I don’t care who is accused - I refuse to convict anyone on anything just from an accusation.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Witness testimony in court is not “just an accusation”. It’s corroborated by cross examination.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
This is pretty ironic.
Witness testimony in court is not “just an accusation”. It’s corroborated by cross examination.
Cross examination is where the opposing council questions the witness in an attempt to poke holes in their testimony, point out inconsistencies and otherwise discredit the witness.
While corroboration means:
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain. synonym: confirm.
Cross examination, be definition, is the exact opposite of corroboration.
Jarix@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I also that, but I’m also in support of massively reforging the legal system so that everyone can and will use it appropriately.
Which a large part of that will be changing how it is funded and expanding it all that appearing before a court to have your case heard is as easy as possible.
Any issue before a court shouldn’t be swayed so easily by how much money you can spend on it, or how long you can tie up the issue to delay and it avoid resolution.
It’s a weird situation where I think more is better
Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
You can absolutely convict people with enough testimony. Word againat word doesn’t suffice but word against words can under certain conditions.
Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 2 days ago
And like a good scientist, I don’t give a shit what you think. Give me evidence.
colforge@lemmy.world 2 days ago
People can’t argue that Donald Trump’s assault on due process is wrong and then turn around and argue that any individual should not get due process, even that scum himself. The gender of the witness is irrelevant, witness testimony is unreliable as it is subject to intimidation, coercion, deception, or even the plain old fallibility of human memory.
I absolutely think there is evidence out there. This man has said so many awful things and I don’t believe all 25 accusers are lying. But I do believe every case should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that the evidence allows.
Donald Trump’s crimes must be laid bare and proven beyond a doubt because even then the MAGA cult will do their mental gymnastics but he will truly have been dethroned as the populist leader of the right that he’s been since 2016.
Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 2 days ago
A-fucking-men
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 2 days ago
“Maybe she wanted it”
“Maybe she injured herself”
“Maybe she is just jealous”
Hard to get evidence to trial when the police and prosecutors ignore evidence of rape like bruises, torn clothing, etc.
Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 2 days ago
Yeah? You got any proof of bruises, torn clothing or et cetera? Please, let’s nail him to the wall together!
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 2 days ago
I’m not constantly asking for evidence you dunce. I’m arguing the original point. Fuck Trump, he’s a cunt for 1000 reasons and I BELIEVE in my heart of hearts he molested girls.
We stand on a system that requires evidence for those claims for a reason, and I believe in those protections when you or I end up under fire.
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
This is the fucking way
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 2 days ago
“Just believe them” is shorthand for “Believe them long enough to actually press charges and hold a trial instead of dismissing them by default”.
Furbag@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah, I think a lot of people are completely missing the point. Very similar to how saying “black lives matter” doesn’t imply that non-black lives do not matter, or that black lives must somehow be considered more important than any other life, the phrase “believe women” doesn’t imply that we should start doubting men, or that a woman’s testimony should be held as a higher form of evidence than anything else. It’s pointing out the clear systemic bias against women in a system controlled and dominated mostly by men who do not want to cede their power and authority.
One of the many flaws of the English language is how difficult it is to condense a very complex sociopolitical message down into a catchy one-liner without losing a ton of the context that got people there in the first place.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m not sure how you square that definition with what the OP wrote in the headline.
They said that we wouldn’t need the Epstein files (the evidence collected by the FBI in order to prosecute this child sex trafficking ring) to prove DJT’s guilt if we just believed women.
I hope you can, at least, see how that appears to be saying that “the evidence isn’t needed if we believe women.” and not "we should take womensy claims seriously.
You’re right that there are two vastly different interpretations of that statement: (1). Take women seriously and (2). A woman’s accusation is a higher form of evidence.
OP’s headline is, at best, poorly written but it’s very easy to understand why it appears to be using (2).
Furbag@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
You make a great point. My own counter to that would be that not every consequence needs to come directly from the courts. People are more than capable of making up their minds about it with just the testimony from the accusers and then acting on that information accordingly, we just didn’t. That doesn’t seem to be OP’s principal argument, though.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That is a very accurate description!
Bubbey@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Wasn’t BLM just a scam to extract money for its operators?
Furbag@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No.
wewbull@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Between charges and a trial is a criminal investigation. If that doesn’t give enough reason to proceed to trial, charges are dropped.
A better stat would be %age of accusations that result in an investigation. That should be a lot higher, but police shouldn’t be trying to prosecute cases that have nothing but an accusation to court.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
They aren’t processing evidence, so what else can they prosecute with? Vibes?
www.endthebacklog.org/what-is-the-backlog/
Look up statistics for your area.
wewbull@feddit.uk 1 day ago
More capacity to process rape kits is something I can get behind. More evidence is good. It would stop people clamouring for convictions based on accusations alone.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 day ago
So if you are assaulted with no witnesses then having bruises, stab wounds, and other injuries shouldn’t be enough for the police to take any action?
Because that is the physical evidence that the police routinely dismiss.
brown567@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That’s because they’re not looking for evidence that shows a crime was committed, they’re looking for evidence of who committed the crime
Your injuries are evidence of a crime, but not necessarily evidence of a specific perpetrator
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Wait, which do you think happens more often: a false accusation, or an uninvestigated sex crime? Because false allegations happen, but statistically it’s like saying you shouldn’t go to restaurants because occasionally chefs murder people with knives. It’ll probably make the news, but only because it’s so fucking rare.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 2 days ago
I said neither of the above. Don’t out words in my mouth.
People are falsely accused of crimes all the time, which is why the legal system requires evidence.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 days ago
All the time? Like once a week? Or like every day? Or maybe like roughly every minute of every day of the year?
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Can you think of an answer to your question would justify the removal of due process or need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
The legal system errs on the side of letting some guilty people go free in order to try to protect against innocent people being unfairly punished.
That’s why the standard for criminal conviction is that the accused is innocent if you have any reasonable doubt.
Smoogs@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Rapists lie too. Can’t just assume it’s the victim all the time lying.
SomethingBlack@lemmy.world 2 days ago
This is exactly right. The “believe women” stance is so childish and naive. “Take women seriously” would be just as effective, less dangerous and fit into every just legal system on the planet
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 days ago
For every 100 rapes and sexual assaults of teenage girls and women reported to police, only 18 lead to an arrest
It’s naive to believe our criminal justice system is reliably investigating and prosecuting instances of sexual assault.
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 2 days ago
When people have sex, they usually do it in private, without any witnesses. Whatever happens during that time is often difficult to prove afterward, since it typically comes down to one person’s word against the other’s. Unless there’s clear physical evidence of assault, it can be extremely hard to establish that something was done against someone’s will. Most reasonable people would agree that “she said so” alone doesn’t amount to proof - and isn’t, by itself, a valid basis for sending someone to prison.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“Listen, you were in an alley and nobody was around, so how do we know you weren’t handing over the wallet voluntarily?”
SomethingBlack@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I don’t think the current legal systems are perfect, but I do think “believe women” would make them fundamentally worse.
How do you handle the issue of future false accusations? And don’t give me the hand wavy “but there are so few false accusations” because that doesn’t matter to the person being accused.
THE core tenet of most legal systems is effectively “innocent until proven guilty”. “Believe women” utterly breaks that, they cannot exist within the same legal framework.
So, would you rather have the legal system change to better serve women by equally investigating their accusations, or by removing “innocent until proven guilty”?
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The same way you do it with men, presumably. Document the incident, collect forensic evidence, interview suspects, refer the matter to the local DA.
I’m trying to imagine this response for any other crime. “Oh, you want us to investigate your car jacking? How do we know you don’t loan it out voluntarily? I guess we should just convict an innocent person!”
plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
If you asked me, I would have guessed a number a fraction of that.
That sounds like there’s an exceptionally high amount lying.
zqps@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Wow, you solved the problem with nothing but misogyny!