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

It seems like that’s a low risk here because this particular set of crimes is inherently difficult to prosecute.

 

Is that because there is little physical evidence?

I meant slippery slope in that if you lessen standards for due process what is to stop it from being lessened for other crimes.
I am for keeping all the rights of suspects, I have no answer as to how to get more convictions but I never want to take away those rights.

 

On the other side of the pond...

 

I know. I recognize the concern, but it’s not clear to me that that would be a serious risk. Sexual assault is a special case because there is frequently either no physical evidence and, when there is, it is indistinguishable from consensual contact. How was Hope Solo supposed to pursue charges against Sepp Blatter? We believe her, right? Those same concerns aren’t present when it comes to, for example, murder. It’s easy to grant due process when we are comfortable that the truth emerges in more cases than not. The same cannot be said about sexual assault. Due process yields more harm than good. Who could deny that? Perpetrators walk free to commit additional, perhaps even escalating, crimes, even though we are urged to believe accusers unconditionally. People used to argue that “gray area consent” was a concern, that a woman could be telling the truth as she saw it, when in actuality consent was granted. That idea, letting men determine if a woman has consented, is today roundly mocked. It’s considered outrageous.

I don’t know how we justify due process for sexual assault. I don’t.

Craziest part: We almost always know who the accused is! That takes the most difficult aspect of an investigation out of play. And we still barely obtain convictions, even though accusers almost exclusively tell the truth. Why grant due process? Tradition?

 

Because sex has never been, and never will be, easy.

 

What is difficult here? Either consent was granted or it was not.

 

Nothing about sex is easy.

Even if most of what you've postulated the last 40 pages is correct, it's sex.

 

Consequence of stripping sex crimes of full due process: A statistically insignificant number of people are wrongfully convicted.

Consequence of maintaining due process as currently practiced for sex crimes: Tens and tens of thousands of perpetrators walk scot-free each year, resulting in tens of thousands of additional victims.

In what sick universe is the former the less desirable outcome?

 

Chuckling at the writing there ... in any situation, don't we always know who "the accused" is? I mean, isn't a name a sine qua non of an accusation?

 

This was front and center in the Reese Witherspoon discussion. It was @outofplace’s primary point, i.e. it wasn’t properly an “accusation.”

 

Ah, got it.

 

"Everyone lies about sex." ~ Robert Heinlein