How to handle sexual assault allegations

Post Reply New Topic

I think that examination of victimhood rates in America show that there is a high level of sexual assault, harassment, and misconduct that takes place everywhere from college campuses to prison yards. My question is, is the best way to handle this to consider an allegation as proof of misconduct? I would say no (please don't hate me) because allegations can be false. I'm NOT trying to invalidate victims or saying that women "cry rape", it's revolting to hear people talk like this. As if victimhood were some sort of credential everyone is seeking. That being said, fake rape allegations can be made, whether cause the assault didn't happen or details are being misremembered. While this could be due to an attempt to ruin someone's reputation it is most likely because the person may not be in a state of mind to correctly remember details, particularly if they are very young or under the influence a memory affecting substance. It is perfectly possible for a child to say something that gets misconstrued as that they are being assaulted or taken advantage of, especially because caregivers and educators can be on such high alert to this kind of thing. If asked a direct question, children often lie unknowingly because they are being led on by the person of authority in a uniform who is interviewing them. I would say that if a proven rape has happened and is reported, the police must move forward with a rape test and investigation. Any allegation should be fully investigated. But I don't know whether or not unproven allegations should be made public. I honestly don't know where I stand on that. The #MeToo movement has done remarkable work in protecting women, particularly in the workplace. But a false accusation could ruin a career, any thoughts? (Also, while I realize this is a hot subject, let's all remember to criticize only the ideas put forth to keep this thread intelligent and kind. Please, no personal attacks).

[opinion=mine]

Any criminal allegation that is made without any physical evidence to back it up should be dismissed without ever going to trial. It does not matter how many people make the same allegation. If there is no physical evidence, then the accused should remain free.

[/opinion]

No, accusations are not evidence; neither are suspicions, hunches, and "feelings". Not even a "Person of Interest" who is "Wanted for Questioning" should be considered guilty. If you are going to accuse someone of a criminal act, then PROVE it!

Okay, to answer your question: No, IMO, an allegation is NOT proof of misconduct.

Secondly, don't say it's revolting to hear people say women cry rape, because there have been too many instances, IMO, where they have----what's revolting is that some women DO (cry rape, when it's not true - obviously, it has truly happened to some, though)! This, coming from a woman (me) who was raised with two sisters and a aunt who were textbook narcissists and were always "victims" of something (not rape - but, to hear them tell it, my sisters' husbands, for instance, were abusing them about every other day [not literal], and the pure and simple fact was that they just weren't getting their way, and it's that despicable behavior that makes it very difficult for true victims of abuse).

Please tell us how you feel "the #MeToo movement has done remarkable work in protecting women, particularly in the workplace"----I'm not saying it hasn't----I'd just like to hear it, from you.

I hate it when people get fired for being accused. It shouldn't even be allowed. It's the law's job to judge them, not yours. If the law finds them guilty you won't need to fire them, the law will do it for you whether you like it or not.

Unless there is technology I do not know about by this standard very few sexual assaulters would be convicted. From DNA there can be physical evidence that the accuser had sex with the person they are accusing. It is rare that there is physical evidence of lack of consent or lack of consent to go "that far" ie the accused and the accusors state of mind at the time. Bruises might be consensual rough sex, video of the person being accused slapping the accuser and the accusor yelling "no no" could be a rape fantasy. Maybe video/DNA and physical evidence the accuser was in no physical shape via drugs/alcohol etc give consent would be enough physical evidence.

Unless future technology can read minds at a particular time the case against people accused of sexual assault is always going to be a mixture of physical, circumstantial, or "he said/she said" evidence.


If a person is acquitted and they were a productive employee they should get their jobs back. But that is never going to happen.

If only Cotton Mather were around today, he would see kinship with those who prosecute men on sexual assault charges simply because two or more women say that it happened to them.

I gotta ask this: Why does it seem that ONLY celebrities and men who are wealthy and/or powerful who are getting tried and convicted? Why does it seem that they are being tried and convicted SOLELY on the basis of testimony given by their alleged victims? And why does it seem that no alleged victims witnessed any other alleged victim being allegedly assaulted?

Yeah, I'm certainly not saying that no person in history has completely made up being a victim of sexual assault, but this isn't a trend. More often than not the problem lies in a faulty investigation or no investigation at all. I think that if an allegation is made, it should be considered evidence enough to investigate the alleged crime. That does not mean going to the press, firing the accused, or destroying anybody's reputation; it's just looking into it. I think there needs to be more training of police officers who are questioning victims, for example often times a victim says they can't remember what an offender looks like so the officer or sketch artist starts guessing. That can go like this:
"Did they have long hair"
"Yes"
"How tall were they"
"Tall"
"Maybe they had glasses?"
"Yes, definitely"
Then suddenly a 5'2'' guy with a buzz cut and 20/20 vision will never be a suspect, this is because these sorts of questions put images in the victim's mind, both the victim and interviewer had very good intentions, but the officer has still corrupted the process of the investigation. When it comes to working environments, I have honestly no clue what to do about allegations (love to hear other's ideas), on the one side if an allegation is made it's likely true and so continuing to send employees into that environment would be unfair. If it's untrue, then you'd be ruining an innocent person's reputation, and if you just switch the alleged offender to a different department all you'd be doing is moving the problem elsewhere. I guess my suggestion would be that any allegation is met with an internal investigation in which the investigator has no connection the individuals involved or vested interests.

I'd say those are just the cases we hear about, the actions of the rich and/or powerful tend to draw the public eye.

Like I said before, allegations tend to be true. If a victim has the support of a social media movement than they may feel more comfortable coming forward, and therefore be more inclined to. When victims come forward it can allow investigations that can, hopefully, reveal any misconduct that has occurred.

Because the news covers famous people. I have seen a lot more celebrities convicted in the court of public opinion and fired by their employers then convicted in an actual court. Bill Cosby seems like an exception, how many celebs have been convicted of sexual misconduct?

Most sexual assailants are smart enough not to assail their victims in front of other people. Famous people have the availability of a lot of privacy.

On a side but related note - ChristyOMisty returned to Youtube recently after an eight year hiatus. Her chat on MGTOW touches on some of these issues.

They shouldn't have to get their jobs back. They should never have lost them in the first place.

I think employers are right to use "balance of probabilities". Particularly in a workplace situation, it will rarely be one person's word against another's - there will be a pattern of behaviour, or the accused will accept some fact but deny that their intention was to belittle, or someone will have seen something.

Obviously the precise nature of the allegation is important. If the allegation is "he put his arm around me in a way that made me feel uncomfortable", then the correct response is probably to ask for an apology, and watch in case he does it again (in which case more serious action will need to be taken). If the allegation is something more serious, and the allegation is credible, then dismissal is the right course of action imo.

Now a court of law is a different matter, but frankly the state of affairs there is heavily skewed in favour of the accused, so I don't think anyone needs to get in a state about miscarriages of justice there.

And fwiw, witness testimony absolutely is evidence. It isn't perfect, and needs to be interpreted carefully, but the same is true of all forms of evidence. We have a much bigger problem with courts not understanding genetic evidence and statistical evidence, but those don't seem to provoke the same emotional reaction.

Sure, eyewitness testimony is considered as evidence in a court of law; but even then, it should be backed up with physical evidence. Otherwise, it turns into a "he said / she said" debate where the moral characters of both the plaintiff and defendant are based on their respective appearances and behaviors, and the outcome of the trial is based on which side gets the most 'likes' in the jury room (in civil cases), or which side convinces the jury that the other side is the Devil incarnate.

Worst case: "Well, he must be guilty of something, so let's convict him of this and we can all go home."

The believability of witnesses and effective lawyers casting doubts on witnesses are often if not most of the time are the determining factor in the outcome of trails.

And that is the saddest statement regarding our judicial system that I have ever read.

That is why if you are autistic and go to trail you should be quite nervous (you do not make eye contact you are a liar, you stim, must be fidgety because you are hiding something etc.)

I've observed that people who have already decided that you are guilty will use your every movement, gesture, and expression as de-facto 'evidence' of your guilt.

"He didn't make eye contact; he's guilty!"
"He stared at every witness; he's guilty!"

"She cried; she's guilty!"
"She sat there, dry-eyed; she's guilty!"

"He fidgeted all through the trial; he's guilty!"
"He sat rock-still all through the trial; he's guilty!"

"She dressed conservatively; she's guilty!"
"She dressed provocatively; she's guilty!"

...