In a situation wherein (a) there are multiple allegations, and (b) none of these allegations will be prosecute in a court of law, shall we presume that those complaining of abuse are lying and/or that the person accused of abuse deserves the benefit of the doubt?
No. I said "innocent until proven guilty" which
applies to accusations of lying as well. You guys act like it is some sort of binary, like either you have to assume the accused is guilty of the accused crime
or the accuser is guilty of lying.
I advocate not assuming the accused is guilty of the crime,
nor assuming that the accuser is lying, until either the accused is proven or admits to it, or evidence comes forward to prove either guilt on the behalf of the accused or deceit on the behalf of the accuser.
I presume
both sides are innocent until proof of their guilt emerges.
For example, let's stick to one specific figure who, through various accusations, I can use to illustrate how I view things on a case by case basis.
Bill Clinton. I view him as guilty of inappropriate relations with Monica Lewinsky because evidence has been given to show that he was lying about his side of the story and that Lewinsky's accusations are true. Here I'd especially like to note that it doesn't, contrary to what you seem to have inferred from my first post, need to be taken to court to be proven one way or another.
However, I do not view him as guilty of raping Juanita Broaddrick even though Broaddrick has levied this accusation, since there is no evidence (to my knowledge) showing that this is the case. Additionally, I do not view Broaddrick as guilty of lying because there is conversely no evidence (to my knowledge) that she has lied about these accusations. So the accusations leveled do not color my perspective of either involved person. If evidence is ever provided that Clinton did what he was accused of, or that Broaddrick is lying, my viewpoint will change accordingly, but until that time, I will personally view both as innocent of any wrongdoing in this issue.
Further, on the assumption I require things proven in a court of law, this is incorrect. On the subject of Franken, for example, he has confessed without the issue being taken to court, so I view him as guilty of the things he confessed to.
And if it was your sister or daughter joined by others like her?
First: Why not brother or son?? Such people can and are abused by those in power as well.
Second: I'd hope that my being related to an accuser would not cause my emotions to cause me to go against my values in objectivity.
Third: I don't like the standard you propose of issuing judgement based on personal relationship. To illustrate why, I'd like to flip the script: So I assume based on the above that if your sister or daughter (or potentially son or brother as well) were accusing another of misconduct you would view the accused as guilty immediately.
So. If it was your sister or daughter or brother or son who was being
accused of sexual misconduct, and they denied it, would you also by default believe that the accusers were lying and your relative was innocent??
If you answered "no" to my question there, then you can see why I believe personal relationships should have no bearing on establishing guilt or innocence.
If you answered "yes", then I disagree firmly that one should let emotions rule one's life to that extent, but at the very least you are consistent in your beliefs.
