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

I said nothing about waiting. I think we need radical change and fast, and of course "fast" is a relative term when we're trying to overcome centuries of systemically entrenched inequality. But your stupid trolling about doing away with due process is just that.

 

It's not trolling. I've been about as earnest as I can be about this. It feels like a cop-out to take the position that "the accuser is to be believed," but not be willing to go further with that and address how that might be applied in the criminal justice context. Otherwise, it's just taking what feels like the "right" position without the peskiness of possible consequences for anyone. It borders on patronizing to victims. It's like telling my kid I believe that he saw a UFO, up until the moment he wants to go to the police to report it.

 

It's our version of Godwin's Law.

 

I'd bet good money that Devil hijacked Dick's log-in at some point early yesterday evening.

 

The thing is, you can have the default setting that you believe your son, and actually go to the police to report the UFO. They can then investigate and determine an outcome to the claim. The fact that there was still a process to determine the validity of his claim that ET came down and ate his Reese's Pieces in no way mitigates your default belief in what he said.

"I believe her" and "I think this case should be investigated and adjudicated" are not mutually exclusive.

 

The position, stated correctly in my case, is, "I quite often find accusers' stories more credible on their face, and given the power dynamics of our society I tend to give the accuser the benefit of doubt." I'm certainly not telling anyone what they should believe. Where you see patronization, I see the recognition of an obviously uneven playing field until the time at which that fundamental unfairness is corrected.

 

Why isn't it enough to treat allegations with the seriousness they merit? I believe Roy Moore's accusers, for the most part, because I have been given enough information to form an educated opinion on it, not just because it's my "default." That's patronizing, especially when no one here seems to be willing to explore a way to enshrine it into the criminal justice process. It's also uncomfortably dismissive of the accused.

 

I agree that there are times when I believe a woman’s claim, but I also understand that though I believe her, it doesn’t always mean there is a prosecutable case. That might be regrettable, but it might also be in the best interest of society.

Nothing prevents me or others from viewing the accused in a new light based on the claims though.

Democrats could have ostracized Bill Clinton 20 years ago based on the accusations against him. That there wasn’t a prosecutable case doesn’t mean we had to believe him.

 

No one has yet explained to me why that's in the best interest of society as opposed to simply excepting this set of crimes from due process. Thousands and thousands of sex criminals walk free every year to commit more crimes, with more victims. The cost of carving out a due process exception would be a handful of wrongful convictions. Why is that worse?

 

Can you imagine how many more things you'd have accomplished if you didn't have to use up 40 percent of your day to taking down the Clintons?

Like invent coffee that stays hot for 12 hours. Or invent coffee for dogs. Or invent dogs that like coffee.

 

Because it would be a band-aid approach to a far bigger problem that could do more harm than good in terms of practice and precedent. Whose decision is it to put a person in jail in the absence of due process?