General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust an observation ...
There have appeared several OPs about Woody Allen that touch on believing/not believing his accuser. The, all to predictable, push back is all about Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence. As one DUer framed it:
It's not about him. To fail to accept the accusations as truth is not defending him.
It's not about her. To fail to accept the accusations as truth is not to claim she's lying.
Or consider another's take:
This is not to call out these DUers (as their comments are fairly representative of a segment of DU); but rather to note the difference in treatment of alleged sex offenders, where they are given the benefit of the doubt, compared to the banksters, where apparently we just skip the alleged part.
Or further, the treatment of the alleged victims of the abuse, who are to be disbelieved, or at a minimum, closely observed in case they are making a false, or unprovable, claim. This places the victim of one unproved crime on the same footing as the perpetrator of another unproved crime.
Just my observation.
Squinch
(51,083 posts)doubt and needs to be treated as innocent until he is proven guilty."
OR, "We can refuse to accept those alter boys' accounts. It doesn't mean we are defending those priests."
OR, "Those people saying Chris Christie did this are just like the accusers in the Salem witch hunts."
OR, "If you believe those priests molested those boys, you are a victim of ergot poisoning."
OR, "Those boys were never molested. Their mothers just brainwashed them."
OR, "Chris Christie is a great governor. If he was guilty of this, he would have been prosecuted already."
Somehow, none of these things is happening. I wonder why it is so different when a young woman comes out and says, "You know that story I told when I was 7? It's still true."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Squinch
(51,083 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Or are you saying that we should treat Woody Allen like we treat other issues?
I guess I'd more agree with the first statement; I do see accusations thrown around with minimal proof more than i would like.
Bryant
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's the conclusion that I came to long ago.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)being an echo chamber were everyone gets attackedbif they dont toe certain cliques approval.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)we rarely argue for "justice" here ... Rather, we argue to "punish."
The is neither liberal nor progressive ... but is eminently human.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)problem is as humans we take sides for whatever reason and then the fights begin.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)to side with an accused rapist over a victim. I wonder why that is?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)unlike you i seek the truth wherever it leads.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)We do indeed argue to punish, and sometimes we do that without sufficient evidence of guilt.
But we often argue for justice. Justice for the oppressed, the wronged, the weak, the sick, the young and the old.
Yes, some have called for banksters (and others) to be jailed, or hanged. And without trial, that would be wrong.
But their sense of justice is not entirely out of whack. What they really want is the damned trial. When federal court judges express astonishment that there have been no criminal cases, when the evidence of fraud is overwhelming, when the corporations admit to their crimes and are fined while no one is punished, the moral outrage people feel demands justice, and that is what most really want.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)most don't want a trial ... they want someone to go to jail, someone to pay; but not just anyone ... but a Dimon caliber executive. And, as I have argued, that is a/the problem that explains the lack of a criminal trial ... the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution of a top executive. The DoJ has said so, and so did the Federal Judge that expressed astonishment.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... mortgage fraud, it's preposterous to claim there is insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)seeing as, two of the three cited to were prosecuted, criminally?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)one prosecution does not cover all crimes ... but it does suggest that the DoJ WILL prosecute when the evidence is there to do so?
That's not grasping at straws or pathetic, that's reality.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)It pisses people off!
/sarc off
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to make non-arguments that in "proving" their case, the prove the opposite ... But that will not stop them.
kelly1mm
(4,735 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that was my point.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)So, so true.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)or "conviction or it didn't happen" WTF, DU?
Hateful, and totally irrational. And I saw that too frequently, and was insulted and attacked for merely saying "we don't know"