“Slaves do not dream of freedom. When their eyes sadden at the gleam of gold, they are not pining to be free. They want slaves of their own.”

  • Mogesh

“‘Xoros is the greatest bullfighter in the world,’ may be an obvious lie, but you are still tricked to believe Xoros fights bulls, or that he even exists at all.”

  • Birondelle

    • War of Omens
  • 0 Posts
  • 2 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’m not claiming this is right or wrong. But here’s the justification.

    The criminal justice system is there to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime occurred. When it comes to distinguishing consensual sex from rape, it’s nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, because it ends up being just she said, he said. One tactic is to show a pattern of multiple victims. So if multiple victims independently come forward with a similar story of sexually predatory behavior, then you have compelling evidence that might be enough for “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    What this means is that, in principle, rapists can just start raping left and right and keep getting away with it. At least for a while. I don’t claim here anything about how frequent or rare these rapists may be.

    This can make life untenable for rape victims on university campus, in that they will not be able to keep going to class in the same room as the person that raped them. This creates even more injustice beyond just that of being victim of a crime that you can’t prove, because they’ll be forced to forego their studies.

    So that’s the justification given for why, morally, we need something that’s a bit easier than “prove beyond reasonable doubt” that will make it possible for the victim to continue their studies. Legally, Title IX, along with a lot of acrobatics, provides the legal framework to force universities to do something about it.

    In practice, it seems that at least in some universities you end up with a complete joke of a system. Universities are completely ill equipped to adjudicate such a complex situations. The whole thing is extremely politicized. The outcome of the investigation seems to be heavily based on the gender of the accuser and accused as well as political connections to the people involved in the process.

    Regardless of if the previous is true or not. Not being allowed to cross-examine the accuser in a she-said he-said situation seems completely insane.

    Personally, I think one party consent for legal recordings (recordings that can only be used for legal purposes in criminal proceedings) should become the norm world-wide. Then catching these rapists is going to be so easy that there won’t be any need to even think about these kinds of kangaroo courts.