2026-09-28 03:42 UTC
@ShadSterling@mastodon.social you seem to think I'm arguing against believing women, or for more scrutiny on women's testimonies. I'm not. First, if the standards of conviction stay the same, we can't have "known criminals" before a jury convicts, so you either want to drop the presumption of innocence, or you agree with me that a trial should be brought forward, with evidence that a crime occurred beyond reasonable doubt. If we agree on that, then charging cases DAs expect to lose doesn't help victims. It produces acquittals, and after an acquittal they can never be retried, even if better evidence surfaces later.
@chiraag@mastodon.online @QasimRashid@mastodon.social
Replies (1)
-
@chiraag@mastodon.online 2026-09-28 04:27
@budududuroiu@hachyderm.io @ShadSterling@mastodon.social @QasimRashid@mastodon.social Everything you have argued presumes that somehow there wasn't enough of a case here. So there seems to be a presumption that "the system" treated her claim fairly and simply decided there wasn't enough to prosecute. I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption. At all. We have ample evidence of people getting away with rape and never being held accountable (see: current POTUS, several SCOTUS appointees, SecDef, etc etc).