Originally Posted by
4468
I don’t disagree.
But in law, if you can’t prove that there was rape. Then the defendant is not guilty of the allegation. They should be free to continue with their lives. It’s really very simple.
If you don’t even bother taking recourse in law, then frankly, any allegation is nothing more than an untested grievance. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask, why have you not taken this to the police?
As I have said. This isn’t rocket science!
Is there anyone that can disagree?
“Law and freedom must be indivisible partners. For without law, there can be no freedom, only chaos and disorder; and without freedom, law is but a cynical veneer for injustice and oppression.”
The law, is fundamental to society as we know it. To seek to subvert it, damages our freedom, and the quality of life itself.
#MeToo and #Time’sUp (etc) seem to wish to bypass the inconvenience of the law?
Do tell me how I’m wrong?
Technically, you have a point - a person can't be punished for a crime unless the crime can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Rape, however, is a unique crime. By its nature, rape is very hard to prove to the standards of other crimes. Even physical evidence such as semen, bruising and injuries are not conclusive proof, especially if both parties are known to each other. The specific nature of the crime - which is violent and ego-destructive - often leads to victims taking time to decide to contact the police, further weakening their case. (Date-rape drugs, by the way, don't always hang around in the system long enough to be detected. Some are gone in a few hours.) Rape is a uniquely traumatic crime, and expecting victims to respond as if they've come downstairs to discover a burglary is unreasonable.
One of the cunning things about rape / sexual assault is that victims remain in isolation, unaware of each other and unable to bolster each other's account. A rape trial isn't usually a class action. #MeToo was a platform that allowed many victims to speak up, so that the MO of individual men could be discerned. A lot of men had their careers trashed because their employers knew that if just one accuser went to court, the accused would lose...because for the first time there would be lots of corroborating witnesses. The employers chose to avoid crippling legal bills and bad publicity in pursuit of a guaranteed loss. Perhaps a few men went down unfairly on the basis of a single complaint. But ask yourself how many men avoided a criminal conviction by heading quickly for the door?
The male pilot in the Alaskan case is indeed currently free to live his life, and will remain free to live his life after the trial. The case is being brought against Alaskan Airways, not him. Whether he's employable depends on what emerges about him during the trial. If he's pure as the driven snow, his reputation will survive. Won't it?