|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far, I have seen no PROOF. Some on here are siding with the supposed victim and some are siding against her, but in the end, where is the PROOF the person did anything wrong? The nice thing with our justice system is that you actually have to prove someone committed a crime. It is the very reason Cosby got cleared. People waited too long until there was no longer any proof. So how could Jessica prove her claim? Well, she apparently did not record it, so there goes that idea. Apparently no one else is coming forward making similar claims, so that is no help. Did anyone witness it? No? Well, I guess she needs to actually make a criminal complaint. Has she? No? Then no crime was committed. That is the simple facts here.
I am not saying the dude isn't a sleaze, he very well might be. Then again, the girl might very well be trying to blackmail her way to some cash in exchange for shutting up. We simply do not know at this point.
I was a prison guard for almost 13 years. I unfortunately saw far to many people accused of rape that did not commit the crime they were accused of. Most of them involved either wives that were caught by their husbands cheating and then claiming rape OR two people getting drunk and one person regretting her drunken decision the next day. Then there was the cases of victims stories changing multiple times before AND during the trial. So at the very least this man deserves his time in court. Failing that, he is innocent.
Actually Jessica has proof of his innapropriate behaviour. She screenshotted the entire thing. Go back through the links in the thread and you'll find them.
I haven't seen any hard proof on the Paizo actions in regards to the complaints, just a growing number of complaints by more than one source.
This isn't a trial, btw. This is a place where people are expressing deep concern about a company they've been supporting for a long time, apparently actively suppressing reports of harassment and abuse for preferred clients and operators.
Paizo has long had a reputation for its acceptance and industry leadership in changing sexist/racist/bigoted views in the gaming industry. If these allegations ( a growing number of them) prove true, then they have been perpetuating a lie. Not illegal, but certainly crippling for a company reliant on its good name to stay running.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not sure why Paizo is responsible for the actions of two creepy old men that don't work for them.
But, whatever, it's not my witch hunt.
So much for waiting until Monday, I guess.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is saying that Paizo is responsible for their behavior. However people are rightly saying that they are responsible for taking appropriate action where they should.
If one of their staff is injured they are responsible for protecting them.
If one of their staff come to them reporting abuse, they need to do what is best for their staff.
We don't know what they actually did so we can't draw conclusions yet.
Depicting concerns as a 'singled out outsider pursuit' does no good for the emotionless tone.
Falling to the emotions on either side is equally troublesome, though understandable.
And as noted up-thread, it was unlikely that it was going to wait, though it was hoped that things would remain calm and stable, and not leap to conclusions or attempts at obfuscation/justification...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're genuinely saying that sexual harassment, abuse and assault was something 'nobody particularly worries about' and you're concerned that people are now worried about it?
Err...what?
Normally, people worry about it the same way they worry about theft, or sickness, or house fires, or losing their job - bad things of all varieties happen to all of us all the time. What's with this sudden, all-consuming deluge in the wider media all focused on a single narrow (yet broadly-defined) topic? This isn't normal.
The specifics in these Paizo-specific cases check out; it's people losing their minds to the larger Katamari that worries me. I've seen that s@%$ before.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to why I posted on the weekend and not waited until Monday? That is simple, Paizo wasn't the intended audience of this thread. These are allegations that have been in the public domain for some time. The Price stuff is newer but the other stuff was out there months ago. Even in the Price situation the company has had time to respond if they want to.
My Intended audience was the Paizo fan base. Both to make sure they were aware of these situations and to begin a conversation about them.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, you're just here to whip Paizo's liberal base into a frenzy.
S++* happens at conventions, and it honestly sounds like they handled the situation when it came up and they're working on ways it wouldn't happen again, so what purpose does bringing it up months after the fact.
Excellent trolling.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Nice of you to add this bit after you'd already been replied to, BTW:
It's called "posting, then going back to edit, and people replying while you're doing that." It's a thing that happens, particularly when you're making an active effort to put thought into what you say.
1) Most of us can be concerned by more than one threat/danger at a time, and b) thanks for the attempt at minimizing the real pain and damage done to victims of harassment and abuse.
Okay...where THE HELL do you get that from???
I'm sorry to say I've BEEN the subject of bullying and abuse. The cumulative weight of various trauma and mental illness has ruined over a decade of my life. Don't you dare play self-righteous with me.
I certainly didn't expect the...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's pointless to try to talk with fanatics, IHIYC. They know they are right, and damn the consequences. Don't waste your breath on them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where THE HELL do you get that from???
I'm sorry to say I've BEEN the subject of bullying and abuse. The cumulative weight of various trauma has cost me over a decade of my life. Don't you dare play self-righteous with me.
I am sincerely sorry for the abuse you suffered, and I weighed that before even replying to you. My response wasn't an attempt to erase your suffering, nor an attempt to "play self-righteous." I can't know your actual intent nor your thoughts. But despite your history, what you actually wrote seemed dismissive, or at least poorly-chosen, to the victims in these two incidents and to the recent revelations of widespread abuse, threats, and violence in our Western society.
Since you say that wasn't your intent, then I apologize for my response.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, you're just here to whip Paizo's liberal base into a frenzy.
S+~* happens at conventions, and it honestly sounds like they handled the situation when it came up and they're working on ways it wouldn't happen again, so what purpose does bringing it up months after the fact.
Excellent trolling.
All of this is new to me.
And if you're not seeing how the current climate has changed so that this has again become relevant, then you're kidding yourself.
if it turns out Paizo as a company has been involved in suppressing reports of harassment etc, that's a pretty major deal.
The current climate means previous methods of coercion against victims have now been swept aside. Individuals and companies are now being called to justify their actions, where previously they'd been allowed to sweep it under a rug.
I don't see this as trolling. Six months ago this would have been locked down and I'd have never heard of it. This is just a re opening of cases previously ignored.
I haven't seen any proof that Paizo are doing these things, but the growing list of allegations is worriesome.
This is the point where victims should come forth and feel able to make their claims without fear of retaliation.
This will serve in one of two ways
- either no one will come forward, and all we'll have is second hand accounts which may not be true.
- or the actual victims will come forward and we will get first hand accounts at which point the company needs to respond.
What I actually think will happen is the thread just gets locked down and removed.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see, standard operating procedure for every convention I have worked (with six years at upscale hotels in both Madison and Seattle) is to resolve situations without involving the police.
Standard operating procedure for every company I've worked for when sexual harassment claims are brought to management are to thank you for not publicizing it and handling it quietly.
So, if you're going to boycott Paizo you should include Pizza Hut, Best Western, Hyatt, Subway, The Bruce Company, and a whole mess of other places.
Just saying.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see, standard operating procedure for every convention I have worked (with six years at upscale hotels in both Madison and Seattle) is to resolve situations without involving the police.
Standard operating procedure for every company I've worked for when sexual harassment claims are brought to management are to thank you for not publicizing it and handling it quietly.
So, if you're going to boycott Paizo you should include Pizza Hut, Best Western, Hyatt, Subway, The Bruce Company, and a whole mess of other places.
Just saying.
This matched up with what I know about how business handle things. I would really like to believe that Paizo isn't the kind of company that would ignore or cover up this kind of thing. For the moment I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I really hope that they will take precautions in the future to help protect people from harassment.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apology accepted.
But despite your history, what you actually wrote seemed dismissive, or at least poorly-chosen, to the victims in these two incidents and to the recent revelations of widespread abuse, threats, and violence in our Western society.
I work very, VERY hard - far harder than most people - to communicate and choose my words. As a matter of fact, it's what I'm trapped doing most of the time. You ever get stuck thinking about an upsetting argument you had a few hours after it happens, trying to figure out what went wrong and what you should have done different? That and a few related thought-prisons make up the vast majority of my waking hours right there, and has been, 24/7, for many years. It ruined what should have been a distinguished college career, and continues to drain the joy and potential from my life.
And yet, despite having become something of a self-taught expert in linguistics and propaganda, people STILL pick on my word choice when I actually try to say something.
The world is full to the brim of suffering, wronged, and misunderstood people, yet sometime in the past few years, sympathy and the right to others' open minds became, at best, a lottery. If you match the superficial, mass-marketed description of Victim Group Of The Week (and you've got to be part of an easily-recognized, not-too-controversial group, of course), you get love-bombed. If you're anyone outside the presently-fashionable group? You'd better suck it up and toe the line, or you're With The Terrorists(TM)! People love to talk about "inclusivity" right now, but what I'm seeing is a direct inversion of that.
Regarding Libel:
While I am not a lawyer, a fun fact about "libel": It is incredibly difficult to prosecute in the United States, essentially requiring proof that the accusations cannot be true. Only rich celebrities can afford the sort of flippant efforts to prosecute it that people are discussing here. It's arguably a bit of a failing in our legal system, but it's also a good reason not to worry. Paizo isn't in...
This is incorrect, completely.
First of all, defamation (libel or slander) in the US is defendent friendly because we have freedom of speech, codified in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This isn't a failure of our legal system, it is in fact one of its best qualities: everyone has a right to voice an opinion because opinion is not considered defamatory. This was not true for all of our history, but has been since 1964.
Proving defamation requires proving statements were knowingly false and caused material harm. Contrary to your claim, it is actually much more difficult for celebrities because they must prove statements were made with actual malice, i.e., intent to do harm. The bar is much higher.
All of this can easily be found out on numerous websites.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to make sure, that I don't get misunderstood: I'm not speaking about what Jessica and Robert reported here. I'm inclined to believe both of them, I'm just not sure how I have to interpret that regarding my own stance towards Paizo.
Come up with a cogent reason why a victim would lie—a cogent reason to disbelieve them when 99% of these accounts turn out to be true—and we'll talk, Sissyl. Until then, save the Red Scare scaremongering for where it's relevant.
Because not everyone is a victim and not everything presented is "honest words". To elusicdate: Several years ago, public attention was going crazy when one of our most popular TV men was charged with sxual assault and was immediately prejudged by basically everyone.At the time of the trial I read an interview with Bernd Brinkmann, one of Germany's foremost forensic experts and founder of the Institute of Forensic Genetics. In this very interview*, he said about their examinations regarding such cases, that in 20% (not sure if I have the number correct, but I think it was 20 %) of the cases, they can prove without a doubt, that the victim was definitely raped. What really shocked me, though, was him also saying that in another 20% of the cases (again, not quite sure about the number, but it was definitely the same number), they can prove without a doubt that the allegation was nothing but a lie (the big share of 60% are cases where they can't find definite evidence about one way or the other). If those numbers are true (and I have no reason to doubt the expert on that), it's not true that 99% of all those reports turn out as facts. It's more like: for every actual vitim there's someone who lies about it, and that's why everything else but "innocent until proven guilty" does not only do a disservice to those people unjustly framed with such a charge, but also to the actual victims of such crimes (exactly for the reason you state, that it can serve as an excuse not to believe anyone).
I don't know why that is as I'm no expert in human motivation. Revenge was probably the motivation in the case of that TV man. But it is actual rape that we talk about here, and as much as my heart goes out to the victims of such horrible actions, you need to be aware of the fact, that not everyone that comes out with such a story is automatically to be taken at truth value.
* As an aside, he gave an expertise about that case, and when this expertise showed a high probability, that the allegedly assaulted woman could have inflicted the wounds serving as proof of the matter to herself, said expertise was declined by the court. Not for being wrong (because the expertise was correct), but because no one wanted to believe the accused could be innocent in fact.
Again, that has nothing to do with Jessica's and Robert's tweets. It's just my reasoning for why I think that even as a private person I should try to hold onto those standards. And I'm not talking about undeniable proof either. It's just that I'm not willing to act on behalf of what somewhat said, when that's the only information I have at the time. Paizo has done a lot to adress topics like this in their statements AND products and has gotten a lot of backlash over it in recent years so I have a hard time when I suddenly are expected to think of them as offenders.
I don't think that they are infallible though, and what I hear from Jessica and Robert really concerns me in a big way. So yeah, Paizo should do something to address those reports, but I think that I owe them at least the opportunity to do so.
Defamation was first tied to the 1st in NY Times Co. V Sullivan, 1964.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a point for clarification:
Someone on page 2 suggested that Paizo recommended the police not get involved. That is not true. Lisa Stevens was fully willing to involve the police but the victim did not wish to press charges. Bill was at the convention with his children and the victim did not want to negatively impact them by having their father arrested.
I don't know why the employee who was injured by Billl didn't press assault charges but that is entirely their call to make and I support their doing what is right for themselves.
However the victim was not involved in the decision-making process to not ban Bill from future conventions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see, standard operating procedure for every convention I have worked (with six years at upscale hotels in both Madison and Seattle) is to resolve situations without involving the police.
Standard operating procedure for every company I've worked for when sexual harassment claims are brought to management are to thank you for not publicizing it and handling it quietly.
So, if you're going to boycott Paizo you should include Pizza Hut, Best Western, Hyatt, Subway, The Bruce Company, and a whole mess of other places.
Just saying.
That's the point of what's being asked here though.
If a company does handle it, that's great. In other words, if they inevestigate it and act on the findings as they should, then there's nothing wrong. Doing that quietly and with as much dignity for all parties as possible is perfectly fine.
But that's not what's being claimed here.
What's being claimed here is the company hasn't dealt with the issue. The claim is they suppressed it, and continued as if nothing occurred.
So far, these are just claims though, and only from a very few people, some of which is only second hand information.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
*reads thread*
...
...
Now this is how you make a "Does the Paladin fall" thread!
...
*Runs away from the angry mob*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Robert, that’s good to know and matches my read of what you said.
It’s very important that Paizo not be questioned for things that weren’t their decision (individuals pressing charges), but equally important they they be questioned for what seem like odd choices (effectively condoning similar future behaviour at their convention).
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also like to point out, for those who might doubt my reasons for involvement, I am a contracted employee of Paizo and have a long-standing positive relationship with the company itself and all of its direct employees (past and present.) I chose to bring this up because the decision to not ban Bill puts people at risk and shows that even if you assault an employee of Paizo you could be back next year. That troubles me and is a major safety concern for those in attendance.
Generally speaking, coming forward like this is often considered "career suicide" in a lot of companies, but even after my very public discussion I have continued to receive work from Paizo. Paizo has not shown any vindictiveness regarding raising my concerns, and they're endeavoring internally to try and improve things as a direct result of my speaking up.
This is a really good step, but not one I could have been sure of from the start. I took a professional risk by speaking up to protect people who weren't aware of the status-quo and represent those who couldn't speak for themselves.
I was also told, under confidence of anonymity, that my public discussion of this lended weight to the internal process of reforming their harassment protocols and policies and is building toward a better means to resolve these situations. I'm eagerly awaiting the results of that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a point for clarification:
Someone on page 2 suggested that Paizo recommended the police not get involved. That is not true. Lisa Stevens was fully willing to involve the police but the victim did not wish to press charges. Bill was at the convention with his children and the victim did not want to negatively impact them by having their father arrested.
I don't know why the employee who was injured by Billl didn't press assault charges but that is entirely their call to make and I support their doing what is right for themselves.
However the victim was not involved in the decision-making process to not ban Bill from future conventions.
That's a very important clarification, and speaks to their decision.
If charges weren't laid, the company would need to be careful in how they handled further interactions for legal reasons.
Imagine the repercussions if a major publishing company blacklisted someone who's business relies on the same community circles. Especially if no reported offence had occurred.
The person not reporting this may well have tied the hands of Paizo as a company.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But despite your history, what you actually wrote seemed dismissive, or at least poorly-chosen, to the victims in these two incidents and to the recent revelations of widespread abuse, threats, and violence in our Western society.
I work very, VERY hard - far harder than most people - to communicate and choose my words. As a matter of fact, it's what I'm trapped doing most of the time. You ever get stuck thinking about an upsetting argument you had a few hours after it happens, trying to figure out what went wrong and what you should have done different? That and a few related thought-prisons make up the vast majority of my waking hours right there, and has been, 24/7, for many years. It ruined what should have been a distinguished college career, and continues to drain the joy and potential from my life.
And yet, despite having become something of a self-taught expert in linguistics and propaganda, people STILL pick on my word choice when I actually try to say something.
The world is full to the brim of suffering, wronged, and misunderstood people, yet sometime in the past few years, sympathy and the right to others' open minds became, at best, a lottery. If you match the superficial, mass-marketed description of Victim Group Of The Week (and you've got to be part of an easily-recognized, not-too-controversial group, of course), you get love-bombed. If you're anyone outside the presently-fashionable group? You'd better suck it up and toe the line, or you're With The Terrorists(TM)! People love to talk about "inclusivity" right now, but what I'm seeing is a direct inversion of that.
{head desk} Apparently, my translator microbes/babelfish are drunk (or Chaotic Evil), because it seems clear you and I aren't speaking the same language, even if we're using English words.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
tl;dr nobody doubt my commitment to sparkle motion
Shhhhh! You'll summon S̸̵̙̣͕̯͎̞̩̞̻̝̰̞͍e͏͙̻͓̮̪͓̦̟̳̘̣͎̗͍͝b҉̵̨̛͉͇̟͔͈̮̰̳̣̘̰̦͓̼̪́ͅa̴̷͖̤͈̦̱̦͎̹͚͟͠s̴̶̰̼͎ ̟̮̗̪̬͕͇̻̩̜̮t̴̡̮͎̤͉͖ị̞͖͈̳̙͇̻̞̼̜͚̖͔̱͝͞a҉̸͔̭̺͓̹̳͓̤̭̜̲̤̝̳̭͢͠ͅņ̮̞͙̘̲̭̱̱͟͟ with that kind of talk, and Unfrozen Pony Lawyer is the last thing this thread needs.
|
|
{head desk} Apparently, my translator microbes/babelfish are drunk (or Chaotic Evil), because it seems clear you and I aren't speaking the same language, even if we're using English words.
That happens, I've learned. :/
It's one of many reasons people ought to be slow, rather than quick, to judge.
I was never attacking specific people, nor such specific cases as I have heard of - I'm expressing concern about something much more abstract and far-reaching, something that feeds off cases like these while also undermining them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a very important clarification, and speaks to their decision.
If charges weren't laid, the company would need to be careful in how they handled further interactions for legal reasons.
Imagine the repercussions if a major publishing company blacklisted someone who's business relies on the same community circles. Especially if no reported offence had occurred.
The person not reporting this may well have tied the hands of Paizo as a company.
The offences (plural) were witnessed. Whether criminal charges are pressed or not, in no way prevents Paizo from banning the attacker.
Here's Gen Con's policy
http://www.gencon.com/attend/policiesHere's the Pax (West policy
http://west.paxsite.com/safety-accessibilityNeither require that charges be brought in order to ban the harasser.
How does that hold up to a law suit for ruining a business or career? Because that was likely what had to be weighed when making decisions on the incident at that time.
Also note that a ban isn't in place yet. But given Roberts more recent posts indicating movement within the company to deal with these situations, nothings to say there won't be a future one.
What I'm saying is, taking time on a decision like this with potential ramifications for your business is prudent.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Innocent until proven guilty" with regards to harassment and worse crimes is one of those specious defenses that just doesn't hold up. It paralyzes us with a hunger for more details from victims, and shames those victims if all they can present is their honest word. It's an excuse to stand by and do nothing because a victim wasn't prescient enough to videotape their own harassment.
Nonsense. It is 100% required. It is the foundation of any legitimate legal system in which people cannot be arbitrarily put in prison for something they did not do. In other words, it is a requirement of any truly free society. This is the cornerstone of the legal system in the US, regardless of how it is, or can be abused.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For people saying 'innocent until proven guilty' I don't really see how that's relevant. I'm not a judge or a jury deciding on somebody to punish, and I'm not aware that anybody here is planning any legal action on these things anyway.
Because it is a rational approach when you do not have all of the facts. And you are sorely mistaken if you truly believe these accusations, and subsequent damage to reputations and careers, cannot rise to the level of punishment... based on judgments you seem to think are appropriate.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonsense. It is 100% required. It is the foundation of any legitimate legal system in which people cannot be arbitrarily put in prison for something they did not do. In other words, it is a requirement of any truly free society. This is the cornerstone of the legal system in the US, regardless of how it is, or can be abused.
And it is something I have reason to fear is being seriously threatened in some corners - and NOT just the ones we're already used to fearing (though I would be willing to argue that that is because it is bleeding outward from those more familiar corners...or certain sources bordering on them both).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current attitude seems to be that all allegations are true, the only way for the accused to react that doesn't make things worse is to admit and apologize, being accused means someone is a worthless human being (if that), shunning someone who has been accused makes you complicit, and claiming "innocent until proven guilty" is a microaggression.
I thought America had learnt from the days of random accusations and published lists of suspected communists.
Guess not.
"Innocent until proven guilty" with regards to harassment and worse crimes is one of those specious defenses that just doesn't hold up. It paralyzes us with a hunger for more details from victims, and shames those victims if all they can present is their honest word. It's an excuse to stand by and do nothing because a victim wasn't prescient enough to videotape their own harassment.
Come up with a cogent reason why a victim would lie—a cogent reason to disbelieve them when 99% of these accounts turn out to be true—and we'll talk, Sissyl. Until then, save the Red Scare scaremongering for where it's relevant.
I mean, Jiminy Christmas, Sissyl, victims risk torpedoing every professional contact they have to come forward, and you think they're doing this for, what, attention? Do you mistrust the "SJWs" that much?
So, we're back to lynch mobs then?
Those always work...
I'm curious how this Frank Mentzer thing is applicable to Paizo. He's not an employee, is he? He held no power over Jessica Price, as far as I can tell. Regardless of what he did, I'm not seeing the relevance.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far, I have seen no PROOF. Some on here are siding with the supposed victim and some are siding against her, but in the end, where is the PROOF the person did anything wrong?
Ah, yes, of course. Let's believe the victim. A victim... based only on accusations. Let's believe all accusations with no proof then.
Because not everyone is a victim and not everything presented is "honest words".
There are several reasons why, at this point in history, you should start from the position of believing reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. The below are just some of them. (Note: any stats reported below are for the U.S.)
- There is a pervasive myth that the reported victims of sexual assaults are either lying or exaggerating their stories. While there are obviously cases where that does happen, the singular form of "statistics" is not "anecdote". Research shows that the false reporting rate for sexual assault is somewhere between 2 and 8%. Turning that around, over 90% of sexual assault allegations are true.
- The previous statistics apply only to reported incidents. Somewhere around 90% of sexual assaults and rapes go unreported.
- Multiple studies show that the victims of sexual assault know the attacker. About 85 to 90% of college women (half of those occur on a date), and about 3/4 of victims overall know their attacker. In cases of sexual abuse of children, about 1/3 are committed by family members. These cases present unique and severe stresses on the victims and there are well documented reasons why victims tend not to report, including protection of other household members, fear of retaliation, and even protection of the attacker.
- Society has a long, well-established, and well-documented history of victim-blaming. "She put herself in this position", "They didn't fight back", "They didn't say anything at the time", and a host of other excuses are commonplace. A victim that reports frequently ends up having their reputation soiled, and the details of their private life put on public display. We are starting to see a shift in attitude in the U.S. thanks to several, recent, high-profile cases, but that problem is by no means "solved".
- The majority of prepetrators of sexual assault do not go to prison (full citations at the bottom of this page). The conviction rate for the U.S. is about 10% for reported rapes.
Sexual assault and harassment live in a rather unique space when you put all these statistics together. It shows that society, as a whole, has a terrible track record when it comes to justice for sex crimes. Even if you believed that numbers were being fudged, or that false reporting was significantly higher, we are still talking about percentages in the extremes and not changes around the margins.
It all boils down to this: the current status quo is heavily and lopsidedly biased toward perpetrators, not victims. [Edited to add:] The justice system in its current form is not working for these crimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the years go by and the rumors of harassment and abuse circulate underground and something finally blows up enough to qualify as "proof" and all the usual suspects question why no one came forward before and why no one did anything because everyone knew about it.For people saying 'innocent until proven guilty' I don't really see how that's relevant. I'm not a judge or a jury deciding on somebody to punish, and I'm not aware that anybody here is planning any legal action on these things anyway.Because it is a rational approach when you do not have all of the facts. And you are sorely mistaken if you truly believe these accusations, and subsequent damage to reputations and careers, cannot rise to the level of punishment... based on judgments you seem to think are appropriate.
So what? How about when the accusation IS a lie? What then? We just crucify someone based on that? Sorry, you can't claim your legal system is just if it is willing to throw away such a fundamental concept based purely on what type of crime it is adjudicating. Another solution must be sought out.