Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapolit1
Appreciate the civil discussion. I don't think these are easy points.
I am a firm believer in the presumption of innocence. I think it has largely been lost in this country. I think it is one of the hallmarks of what makes our justice system great.
And, yes, once you are charged with something improperly it sucks and people's reputations can be ruined. Not to be flip, but read up on the Fatty Arbuckle case. Ridiculous.
I don't think it was fair to say these charges were tried or tested in court. If there was a trial or hearing of some kind I missed it. I though there was just a decision not to proceed.
I don't know if he is guilty or innocent. I suspect he committed crimes that can't be proven. I also believe he is a shitbag of a human being. If I was charged with such horrible acts I would wish the people I work with would come to my defense immediately and make an uproar. And talk about my character generally. Haven't seen much of any of that.
We all make judgments in these situations based on our instincts and life experience. I'm not saying mine is any better than yours. I don't know he's guilty of these acts any more than you know he's innocent.
|
Certainly not easy. Debate is great fun and need not be personal. I agree the presumption of innocence has been largely lost; if not in court certainly in the public realm.
This is my understanding too. There was no trial; the state would not even bring charges because her evidence directly contradicted her claim, or they thought that it did. California is extremely pro #metoo. My personal opinion is that this furthers Bauer’s claim, not even a California DA would bring charges on this one to send to trial because it’s such a loser of a case.
I think where I differ is that reputation for other things shouldn’t be relevant. I would hope my coworkers would say “that’s not right, he wouldn’t do that”, but one should be able to bank on the truth and not their popularity. That a person, say, has committed theft and fraud doesn’t mean they committed a murder or some other crime. I think this is where our system often fails, juries and judges tend to convict people who don’t present well of all kinds of crimes. Bauer may or may not be an ass (I really only know his pitching, criticisms of the commissioner, and this case here, I haven’t followed his whole saga), but it shouldn’t be relevant to this. If he committed the crime he should be convicted, if he did not he should get off completely free. Proving a negative is often impossible, but that the case was dropped because the evidence she provided completely contradicted her claims does, in my eye, absolve the accused.
Rape is often a terrible crime because (I am speaking effectively here, not morally) it is a difficult crime to prove with little evidence; centered in what is usually a 1:1 encounter without witnesses. Cases like this make it worse; a societal focus on it is not bad but when it turns to incidents like this, where claims are made against unpopular people that turn out to be false it hurts everyone. It hurts actual victims, it hurts people who did nothing wrong under the law (whatever one’s thoughts in rough sex, it is not a crime), it hurts the legal system, it hurts the original goals of the activists. It pushes the activism into bad ground, their instinctual reaction to believe an accuser instead of evidence making them defend a bad and false case discredits the whole effort in the eyes of many who were in agreement or open to their efforts before.