- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
- The logic doesn't jump-- it soars. Firstly, nobody can ever state how many people should be making a similar accusation of an individual before we should look into it, talk less of before we should have active reason to suspect that someone is guilty. Secondly, there's absolutely no discussion about the thought processes behind the "verdict" of a "not credible enough" testimony or what, if anything, would lead someone to come to the conclusion that "she wanted it". Thirdly, testifying out of court is not testifying. It's making an unsworn statement. Sworn testimony is valuable only because the justice system can hold you to the fire in case you're caught lying-- anyone can just say something. But the article snippet itself is just worded very poorly-- it doesn't suggest that a survey of any kind was done and doesn't dissect the informative statements that it puts forward.
- I still need to come to grips with the fact that the justice system isn't perfect, so I understand why some may not resort to it. But when it fails, it never fails only the individual victim-- the perpetrator ends up going free, able to victimize others until he hopefully gets caught. That said, if someone decides not to go to the authorities about the incident, then they can't reasonably also decide to shout it from the rooftops with or without the veil of anonymity. You're entitled to healing and support when you're not making claims that someone did something-- at that point, you're entitled to finish what you started, because either we're dealing with a menace to society, or you decided to falsely accuse someone of a heinous crime.
