Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

You should have known better than to answer it once.

 

Who is pushing back? The low number of cases brought to justice is disturbing, in light of the high level of confidence in the truth of accusations.

Everybody understands that conviction should require a full investigation and a fair trial, for all crimes.

Why, though?

 

This is entering your field of expertise—math, I mean—but in the first instance, aren't we saying "We don't believe either of you?" So by definition it means that "We don't believe the woman who says this terrible thing happened to her." That's half of not believing either of them.

 

What a weird question

 

Your default is to believe the accused.

You are OK with false convictions because, statistically, they would occur extraordinarily infrequently.

Need we try these cases? If so, why?

 

Dude is drunk.

 

No, that’s not what that means. It means we’re saying “You’re both equally credible.”

 

You made a conclusory statement.

 

Which is unjust. Accusers are telling the truth far more often than the accused.

 

Would you feel that way about another crime? If I said someone had mugged me, and the guy I accused said he didn't, would you find us each equally credible?

 

How does believing the accuser matter if there’s no real world application? Should we convict based on accusations alone? Flip the burden of proof? Otherwise, “believe the accuser” seems patronizing.

 

Would you flip the burden of proof in court?