Giggity
- Thread starter Hantlers
- Start date
I agree with you that it is insane (based strictly on the age difference) but if you are going to apply that metric, which society has, apply it consistently.
When one person is in a position of autority over the other that is different.
Yes, but we're applying it in the wrong direction. The gender of the two is irrelevant. It's no big deal regardless.
I agree and think it should be done away with but until it is than it needs to be applied equally regardless of gender of victim or perpetrator.
HipHopAnonymous
Active Member
Guilty until proven innocent by the media. Her teacher career is over guilty or not. Seems a bit unfair to be able to post a picture of the accused but not of the accuser.
Mr. McGibblets
Well-Known Member
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept regarding who has the burden of proof. It doesn't mean everyone should assume the person is innocent in day to day life except for the police/prosecutors.
I love that the state has the burden to prove a citizen did something and that we don't instead require the accused to prove they DIDN'T do it. But it is irrelevant whether I as a private citizen should think someone's a slimeball/guilty even though a jury hasn't convicted them yet.
As for the media, there's a reason they post the accuser and not the accused. I think it's a good idea to consider not naming the accused in sex crimes until they are proven guilty because of the way mere criminal allegations can ruin lives and careers even without a conviction. But to say it's unfair that a victim isn't publicized comes off quite ignorant. Victims of violent crimes and especially sexual crimes have a much lower reporting rate than other crimes for a number of reasons. Often it may involve embarrassment and risk of retaliation from the accuseds' friends/family.
Are innocent people harmed by false accusations, of course! And the false accusers should be shamed and punished! But until that time arrives that an accusation is proven false, an accuser's identity should not be thrown about publicly for everyone to attack.
Does anybody remember case from around 2008 involving the seminary principal in Utah? Did anybody see the things said about that girl by her peers? Did anyone see the young teenagers show up to court in support of the accused while trashing the victim on facebook, blogs, and other social media? Publishing her information would not have done any good for her or the situation. If it would have turned out that she made it up then yes she should be publicly shamed, but not at first. It's hard enough for victims to come forward in the first place. Requiring them to give up any sense of privacy in addition to publicly facing their rapist places too much of a burden on a person.
I love that the state has the burden to prove a citizen did something and that we don't instead require the accused to prove they DIDN'T do it. But it is irrelevant whether I as a private citizen should think someone's a slimeball/guilty even though a jury hasn't convicted them yet.
As for the media, there's a reason they post the accuser and not the accused. I think it's a good idea to consider not naming the accused in sex crimes until they are proven guilty because of the way mere criminal allegations can ruin lives and careers even without a conviction. But to say it's unfair that a victim isn't publicized comes off quite ignorant. Victims of violent crimes and especially sexual crimes have a much lower reporting rate than other crimes for a number of reasons. Often it may involve embarrassment and risk of retaliation from the accuseds' friends/family.
Are innocent people harmed by false accusations, of course! And the false accusers should be shamed and punished! But until that time arrives that an accusation is proven false, an accuser's identity should not be thrown about publicly for everyone to attack.
Does anybody remember case from around 2008 involving the seminary principal in Utah? Did anybody see the things said about that girl by her peers? Did anyone see the young teenagers show up to court in support of the accused while trashing the victim on facebook, blogs, and other social media? Publishing her information would not have done any good for her or the situation. If it would have turned out that she made it up then yes she should be publicly shamed, but not at first. It's hard enough for victims to come forward in the first place. Requiring them to give up any sense of privacy in addition to publicly facing their rapist places too much of a burden on a person.
The teacher was 22. In Utah, consensual sex between people of ages 22 and 17 is legal, AFAICT.
scootsy
Well-Known Member
legal ramifications aren't the only thing that can "ruin a person's life". I'm sure the public shaming currently taking place is doing a fine enough job at that.
HipHopAnonymous
Active Member
I'm saying it's unfair to post one and not the other. All the damage is done to the accused the minute they have their face and name plastered on the news. If they are proven innocent there is the perception (fair or not) that they got through a technicality or worked the system some how. Either way their teaching career is over.
Hartsock
Banned
If an accuser makes a blatant false claim they should be subjected to the punishment the accused would have faced if convicted. Obviously would be impossible to regulate but in theory it would be nice.
If guilty it should be over. I see the point you are making though. You can take that with any crime (yes, some moreso than others).
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I'm not planning to look into this very closely, but plastering the teacher's face all over the news is wrong before it's been proven that she did something without consent of the other person. If the student consented, then the teacher should still be fired, but even then there should be plenty of other considerations before broadcasting consentual sex over the (stupid) local news.
Also, I find it funny that they go "on-site" to report breaking news that everybody should know.......... but then feel really uncomfortable reporting that it was sex between two women. Hilarious. I ****ing hate televised news.
Also, I find it funny that they go "on-site" to report breaking news that everybody should know.......... but then feel really uncomfortable reporting that it was sex between two women. Hilarious. I ****ing hate televised news.
Last edited: