[LOCKED] OSUs Gareon Conley accused of rape
http://247sports.com/Bolt/Report-NFL-Draft-prospect-Gareon-Conley-accus… Innocent until proven guilty, I presume.
MOD EDIT - We'll lock this one for now. Even with numerous deletions of subthreads yesterday, it's getting off the rails. - LSA
I can see both sides of this conversation. I tend to agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" stance. In this case, I'm not saying the crime didn't happen. I'm simply holding off judgment for EITHER party until the case is proven.
If you see something wrong with how rape cases are prosecuted, then push for reform. But 'Innocent until proven guilty', as others have said, is a fundamental right granted by the Constitution.
Many of these cases that are prosecuted go before jury trial. If the jurors are sitting there thinking 'guilty' before evidence is presented, it is basically a kangaroo court.
I'm happy to revise my stance, because in essence, this is what I'm trying to get across:
A trial is not to determine whether a crime has been committed. It is to determine whether the person ON trial is guilty of the crime.
That covers off on both the "innocent until proven guilty" and "believe the victim" stance. Does this work for you?
What works is covering all scenarios. If it is a false accusation, automatically believing the victim is problematic, no?
a citizen of the United States is innocent until proven guilty of a crime does not make me "complicit in a rape culture" or "part of the problem." That is a very ingorant statement. It makes me a believer of the costitutional rights afforded a criminal defendant in the United States, and very knowledgeable as to the history of criminal prosecutions and why they are afforded those rights.
Any investigation has to begin with "The person complaining is probably right." If you complain about a loud party to the police, the assumption can't be, "I bet there was no loud party. These neighbors just have it in for the people they're complaining about!" If I report my car as stolen, the police aren't going to show up and say, "Did you REALLY have a car that was sitting in your driveway, or are you making it up?"
As a police officer, you start by believing the complainant/victim. Then you move on to finding out whether the accused party is actually guilty.
April 25th, 2017 at 10:33 PM ^
You're splitting hairs.
How about this:
If you report to a police officer, "Kevin stole my car," the police officer isn't going to think, "Are you sure you didn't just lend it to him?"
"Innocent till proven guilty" is a mandate to the courts; and considering how many innocent people rot in jail in this country, the judicial system is blowing that big time.
If innocent till proven where a mandate to citizens we would all be guilty of thinking OJ killed his wife.
So if a 10 year old told you their coach was molesting them, do you make them stay on the team, cuz "innocent till proven"?
...it has nothing to do with it....when you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
...to try to win an argument, my statement indicated that I know I can't win this one because you are stubbornly entrenched in a false belief that citizens aren't free to express their beliefs unless they can prove them.
Uh-oh time to close the internet!
It's relevancy?
Since I don't have the power to take someone's freedom away, I can tell every young lady I know to stay away from Conley because he's a raping ass clown, even if he is completely innocent; just like I wouldn't let my kids near somebody they accused of molestation.
1) Innocent until proven guilty is one thing, but it's important to believe that this person was attacked. Period. And if she's an eyewitness and a victim, it's important to believe her. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to rape just because we say it does. There's a balance involved with rape cases. And given that rape was barely considered at the founding of our country, the "innocent until proven guilty" stance deserves more than a cursory revisiting.
2) Yes, it's more likely that a rape occurred in a three-or-foursome because there are more witnesses. If you're going to make something up, you want as few people as possible to be there to refute it.
As an attorney (and, I guess, citizen?) this is somehow the craziest post in this thread. You do not automatically believe accusations, you investigate them, regardless of the crime. You consider whether the story you're being told is plausible and seek evidence that either supports it or doesn't. The elevator story is bizarre; it may be entirely true, but it is one reason to legitimately wonder whether this accusation is false.
You are taking a real issue - stigmatization of sexual assault victims - and overcorrecting in a ridiculous way. You mention elsewhere that these are often crimes with the least amount of physical evidence; you must realize that this also makes them among the easiest to lie about. And despite the claims and "statistics" cited in this thread, people regularly (not constantly) do make false accusations about rape and everything else.
The idea that you want to revisit the principle of innocent until proven guilty - that we should presume guilt because someone with little or no evidence makes a claim, without any investigation - it's just so nuts. You must realize that. That idea is a foundation of society. I am legitimately terrified that this comment has two upvotes. We can take claims of rape seriously, we can investigate them legitimately, we can stop saying things like "she asked for it," but still, you know, not toss people in jail because the founding fathers didn't think about rape or something?
Thank you for bringing some sanity back to that craziness. It blows my mind sometimes how people do not understand basic principles. The fact that so many people upvote these ridiculous mob mentality views is disturbing. As you said, one does not automatically believe accusations. One investigates them to see if they have merit. And in the meantime while that is happening, enforcement removes or mitigates any danger present until such a time that it can be done.
It is important to remember that there is a vast gulf between "the victim believes he or she was raped but the investigation or trial determined that the accused is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "the alleged victim was lying." The mental state OF THE ACCUUSED is what counts to the law. It counts far less in how we should regard the accusor. It is entirely possible for the accusor to believe themselves a victim of rape and for the accused to be innocent of rape.
I believe everyone who reports that they've been raped should be treated as though they really were. I can't imagine how traumatic of an experience it must be, and it's something you live with for the rest of your life. You need to provide them some kind of safe environment and support for whatever they need.
But I also don't think the alleged assailant should automatically be presumed guilty, which I feel like is what you're sort of alluding to. I wouldn't assume anything. That's when you have people like Brian Banks who have their entire lives/reputation ruined because someone falsely accused them of rape.
That is one of the other problems with this kind of crime. I think too often the accused is judged guilty by society the minute they're accused. We immediately feel compelled to disregard the accused as scum and anything they say in their defense is nothing but pure garbage. Both parties should have the same opportunities to prove that they're telling the truth. I get it that more often than not its true. But every situation is different.
I never want to downplay the severity of this crime, or discourage someone who says they've been raped from coming forward. Ever. But everyone deserves their day in court. Both the accused and the accuser. We have to trust the justice system to make the right decision. Whatever it may be.
April 25th, 2017 at 11:13 PM ^
http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_Fa…
Apparently somewhere between 2 and 10 percent.
In a 1996 report by the FBI it was said to be around 8 percent.
Hard to know for sure and I don't know if that is really high or really low. Either way, there are way, way too many sexual assaults since in the False Reporting Overview it says around 63 percent go unreported. Crazy
are all over the place. Magnus posts just one of numerous studies examined by Rumney 2006:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney_.282006.29
Poor word choice. Of course the survivor should should be automatically believed and treated with respect. But the accused is still innocent until proven guilty. The two are not mutually exclusive. If the investigation shows that there is no evidence and it is he said/she said, then you can't convict. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. (Unless the guy was in another country at the time or something.)
You said that better than I did.
