Hi Everyone

I have seen in the media that some people are saying that alleged victims of sexual abuse and rape should be automatically 100% believed without doubt. The logical conclusion of this position is that the accused would be assumed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. Is this an acceptable position?

As I see it, your position on this debate ought logically to align with the choice you make in the very tough poll I am posting here.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

11 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

I have seen in the media that some people are saying that alleged victims of sexual abuse and rape should be automatically 100% believed without doubt.

I challenge you to provide even one citation supporting this absurd comment. 

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

I challenge you to provide even one citation supporting this absurd comment. 

We  have actually had this conversation, maybe last year, about when the MeToo thing was kicking off.

Edited January 18, 20214 yr by StringJunky

This is the part to which I’m referring: “should be automatically 100% believed without doubt.”

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

I challenge you to provide even one citation supporting this absurd comment. 

We have recently had a disturbing case in NSW concerning this......

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/blue-mountains-circus-family-breaks-silence-over-false-child-sex-abuse-charges/news-story/8613a9156877d0cca3e2d3148767c5d8

This whole family were isolated from each other, and spent 7 months behind bars before the case was dropped and they were cleared. Quite disturbing in my opinion.

Edited January 18, 20214 yr by beecee

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

I challenge you to provide even one citation supporting this absurd comment. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women

'Here's another.......

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-17/canberra-woman-jailed-for-false-rape-claim/10723908

Canberra woman Sarah-Jane Parkinson jailed for making false rape claim against ex-partner:

A former prison guard who spent months behind bars for a fake rape has told a court how his ex-partner's crime nearly drove him to suicide, changed who he was and "shattered" his faith in the legal system.

Sarah-Jane Parkinson, 28, was on Thursday sentenced to more than three years in jail in the ACT Magistrates Court for the false claim made in 2014, in which she went as far as to stage a crime scene.

I would like to make what I think is a very important clarification here: I think that if an alleged victim is not 100% believed, this does not necessarily mean that they are being disbelieved. There is a seemingly subtle but very important difference here.

Edited January 18, 20214 yr by tim.tdj

Despite my two links, I have not voted in this poll. Any sexual assault, real sexual assault, needs to be dealt with in the strongest possible terms, just as anyone vindictively falsely accusing another of that heinous crime, should also be dealt with in the strongest possible terms.  My first harrowing example of a whole family being put through hell, because of the automatic belief in what two children [goaded by their sick fanatically religious Mother] is an example of accusers of rape or sexual assault being automatically 100% believed, is a great example of injustices that can occur.

As an old bastard I often indulge in casual banter with shop assistants, bank tellers and the like.....eg: an actual case: [To 50ish year old female bank teller] In trying to transfer some money to different bank and company for home alterations, and being advised by this helpful Teller as to the best way to go about it. Me: Gee thanks for your help  Love, you're a bloody Angel! Her: [Laughing out loud] No problem sweety, glad to be of assistance!.

Why did I mention this? Because I was roundly bullied by what I call a feminazi, that what I did could be construed as sexual assault. The bank Tellers reply was strangely ignored.

The same feminazi likewise poured out her evil interpretation at my recent old boys reunion at my local club, because of the following conversation......There were 9 of us, being looked after by two female bar attendants who were constantly indulging in casual banter with all of us and with many references to each other as 'love" "sweety"  etc etc, and which I, in relating the story said that both girls [ages 25ish and 30ish] kept us 9 blokes well lubricated. Objection was taken against the word "lubricated". Again accused of it being taken as sexual assault.  

Why am I mentioning this? Possibly because of examples of feminism and the 'me too'  movement going too far?

None of the links provided by beecee and tim.tdj support the assertion that "some people are saying that alleged victims of sexual abuse and rape should be automatically 100% believed without doubt."

beecee's links are examples people apparently being falsely accused of crimes and suffering the consequences prior to being released. Sad but doesn't directly address the assertion.

tim.tdj's link seems to refute his own assertion: ""don't assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones."

2 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

I have seen in the media that some people are saying that alleged victims of sexual abuse and rape should be automatically 100% believed without doubt. The logical conclusion of this position is that the accused would be assumed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. Is this an acceptable position?

!

Moderator Note

You have not established this to be the case, and your “logical conclusion” is implying that the justice system would be discarded in these cases, and is likewise without support.

This is not in keeping with our rule on making arguments in good faith. I will leave the discussion open so these points can be explored, but am closing the poll

 

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

None of the links provided by beecee and tim.tdj support the assertion that "some people are saying that alleged victims of sexual abuse and rape should be automatically 100% believed without doubt."

beecee's links are examples people apparently being falsely accused of crimes and suffering the consequences prior to being released. Sad but doesn't directly address the assertion.

 I watched the actual show on Sunday night, and some of the facts arising were....no images and such found on any computers....no injuries found on any children...physically impossible were some of the allegations like lifting a child up by his penis...nothing other then the children's and the Mother's say so.  There house and surroundings were invaded in the early hours of the morning by Police elite swat teams, based on no more then the two children's and Mother's say so. It was in my opinion one of the most disturbing events of our "justice system" I have ever witnessed. If you can get the whole show, I suggest you watch it.

52 minutes ago, zapatos said:

None of the links provided by beecee and tim.tdj support the assertion that "some people are saying that alleged victims of sexual abuse and rape should be automatically 100% believed without doubt."

beecee's links are examples people apparently being falsely accused of crimes and suffering the consequences prior to being released. Sad but doesn't directly address the assertion.

tim.tdj's link seems to refute his own assertion: ""don't assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones."

Thanks for saving me the time. +1

2 hours ago, iNow said:

This is the part to which I’m referring: “should be automatically 100% believed without doubt.”

I've heard this said several times now in the U.K.

Over here though, there have been several cases of rape victims committing suicide after giving evidence in court. There was some questions about how aggressively barristers where questioning witnesses, calling them liars and blaming/shaming etc...

I was under the impression the 'automatically believed' was more to do with protecting the victims from over aggressive barristers.

The problem was what beecee and tim.tdj pointed out, the false accusations. If you're innocent then you should be able to defend yourself, having restraints on what your barrister can do puts you at a disadvantage.

 

Our default position should be to assume they’re telling the truth.

That’s not the same as saying belief should be automatic 100% of the time with zero doubt whatsoever. 

Why so many otherwise very smart people struggle with this simple nuance boggles the mind. 

52 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

I've heard this said several times now in the U.K.

 

Can you please provide a citation?

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you please provide a citation?

Not from me you can't.

These are things that I see discussed on daytime t.v., radio shows and the like. It was the story's of victims committing suicide that prompted it. There was one in particular that was on the news. These are the things they were discussing.

It was the barristers behaviour that was the talking point rather than the victim/accused. It's one of those things that pops up in the news every now and again, presumably because they never actually do anything about it.

There was a high profile one 5 minutes from where I live not long ago. Footballer Ched Evans was accused of rape, sentenced to prison. He spent 2+ years in prison before being found not guilty.

 

Edited January 19, 20214 yr by Curious layman

3 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Not from me you can't.

Well then there is no reason to believe such an outlandish assertion, is there?

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Well then there is no reason to believe such an outlandish assertion, is there?

"Believe such an outlandish assertion"

I not gonna lie, that's really pissed me off.

How do you know what we talk about over here? it's no assertion, it's a fact.

And what do you mean believe, this isn't something I've been told. This is something I've come across in my day to day life. At work, at home, out with friends. I'm not sure why you think I'm a liar, I can assure you I'm not.

 

Let’s dial back the emotion a bit.

My suspicion is you heard something different than what was intended or actually conveyed. Anyone who says there’s no room for doubt in 100% of cases is an idiot.

Most people say our default position should be to believe them, and to validate their claims as much as we can before dismissing them.

But that’s not what you and others are describing here. We’d be able to clear this up really quite quickly if citations were provided. 

Nobody has, at least none which support the strawman being argued against. I wonder why. 

1 hour ago, Curious layman said:

 

The problem was what beecee and tim.tdj pointed out, the false accusations. If you're innocent then you should be able to defend yourself, having restraints on what your barrister can do puts you at a disadvantage.

 

Perhaps the Barristers and Lawyers, need to be educated more on obtaining truth and reality, rather then a win at any cost? 

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Most people say our default position should be to believe them, and to validate their claims as much as we can before dismissing them.

But that’s not what you and others are describing here. We’d be able to clear this up really quite quickly if citations were provided. 

OK, Won't argue with that. Still, with my first link, I assumed on the 1 hour investigative program, that there was absolutely no evidence that showed anything had been committed at all, other then the words of two children, with the help of a religiously fanatical Mother.

30 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

it's no assertion, it's a fact.

 

Believing everything I'm told by anonymous strangers on the internet is not my modus operandi. Even when they give me their personal assurances.

Nobody’s arguing that false accusations aren’t even made or that people aren’t on rare occasions punished unfairly. That barely ever happens, though. Most claims are true and based on actual events. In fact, what’s FAR more likely to happen is that victims fail to report or bring forward their experience to authorities... not that they make up something which never happened. That’s a defense common among abusers. 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Believing everything I'm told by anonymous strangers on the internet is not my modus operandi. Even when they give me their personal assurances.

Please explain how the f**k I'm supposed to get a citation from a discussion on talk radio, or a day time t.v. Show.

What do you want me to do, secretly film my work colleagues talking about it, then post it here.

18 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Please explain how the f**k I'm supposed to get a citation from a discussion on talk radio, or a day time t.v. Show.

I’m sure a transcript exists