Post #4879715 · Elektrine

2026-09-28 04:30 UTC

@budududuroiu@hachyderm.io @ShadSterling@mastodon.social @QasimRashid@mastodon.social You repeatedly seem to give 'the system' the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they would convict if they had enough evidence. That assumes they even *looked* for evidence and that they believed her in the first place, both of which are dubious assumptions.

Replies (1)

@budududuroiu@hachyderm.io 2026-09-28 04:46

@chiraag@mastodon.online What 'system' are you talking about? Conviction is based on a jury of one's peers, specifically so that criminal trials aren't decided by 'the system'. It's in the DAs interest to win as many easy and high-profile cases, since you make it seem like the the conviction is a foregone conclusion. Both Hegseth and Kavanaugh faced allegations that were never tried. Having no standard of proof, no cross-examination by lawyers, and no discovery process is a poor example to point to say "get away with rape". The only principle I'm defending is that nobody, in any case, gets labelled a criminal before the evidence has been tested. I think this is foundational to liberal democracy. Again, as I mentioned before, NY has no statute of limitations on first-degree rape. Surfacing evidence in a civil case, or surfacing new evidence decades later, which can reopen a criminal suit is, imo, infinitely better than acquittal on weak evidence and closing the door on criminal charges forever. @ShadSterling@mastodon.social @QasimRashid@mastodon.social

Open ##4879714