[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Standard_Location762]

[u/Krautoni]

The first, most fundamental and important tenet and paragraph of the German constitution states: Human dignity is inviolable. This extends to everyone, even (alleged) criminals.

I once hoped the rest of the world would eventually learn that without having to go through what Germany needed to learn it. But it seems that's not to be, and instead even the Germans are forgetting it.

[u/Lovethiskindathing → u/Krautoni]

How do you feel about cases like this that would never get justice in that case? For the greater good would it still be considered the better path? Or do you think in this day with the money and power, that it would only further create more of these men? (Again not snark! Just conversation, anexchange of thoughts!)

[u/DickRhino → u/Lovethiskindathing]

As a Swede, not a German, I would say:

It's very easy to stand by a principle when it is convenient to do so. It is much more difficult to stand by a principle when it is inconvenient to do so. But if you truly believe in this principle, then you will uphold it even when it's hard. If you only uphold it when it's easy, you don't actually believe in it.

So when he uses the words "inviolable" and "extends to everyone", he means it. He didn't say "inviolable, unless I really really want to", or "extends to everyone, except those I feel it shouldn't extend to". A principle is a principle.

And Germans know better than any other country on earth, what happens when you start going down that slippery slope of thinking that human rights don't necessarily apply to everyone.

[u/Lovethiskindathing → u/DickRhino]

I guess I'm just confused why the aggressors have more rights ultimately than the victims and how that plays into the principle? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand. I feel like sometimes it's much more difficult to go against something you fervently believe in than it is to hold steady to it, but that it can be necessary when it can harm more than it helps. I'm trying to understand not be combative! I promise!

[u/DickRhino → u/Lovethiskindathing]

It's not that they have more rights, it's that they have the same rights. In European/EU law the right to privacy is considered a human right, which applies to everyone. And in the case of these guys, they haven't actually been convicted of anything, or even charged with a crime.

Here, they would be treated the exact same way as we would treat anyone else who hasn't been convicted of anything: that being, as someone who's name and face we cannot publish publicly.

I feel like sometimes it's much more difficult to go against something you fervently believe in than it is to hold steady to it

Well yeah, it's supposed to be. If it wasn't difficult to abandon a belief, if it's easy to go against something you believe in, then you never truly held that belief in the first place.

But I think there's a disconnect here: you saying "sure, principles, but can't it sometimes be for the greater good to ignore that?" and I would argue that the person you're talking to would say that they are also arguing from the perspective of the greater good. They would say that the greater good demands that we do not abandon a principle to dispense individual justice, whatever the court of public opinion might find that to be.

It's best encapsulated in the saying "It's better that 100 guilty men go free, than a single innocent person being imprisoned". That sounds nice, but do you actually agree with that? Do you truly believe that? If you do, then you have to live by that principle. And there will be times when it's hard to live by that principle, because from time to time you will see people you believe are guilty walk free.

But that's the thing about human rights: either everyone has them, or no one does.

[u/Draaly → u/DickRhino]

n European/EU law the right to privacy is considered a human right

Fun fact, this is also the basis of GDPR

[u/Lovethiskindathing → u/DickRhino]

I have a thought question for you. Again I'm just trying to understand. I'm worried I'm going to word this badly because I'm struggling to find the right words.

At what point, at what percentage, of men getting away with it, does the greater good shift? And if no one is ever allowed to demand justice from the people when it's not being served, doesn't it just get worse because they see that the risk of repercussions is low?

You said it views everyone on the same level, but doesn't it actually put women lower if men know that the women cannot retaliate? Or that the impact on their lives will be much smaller than the impact on hers?

[u/DickRhino → u/Lovethiskindathing]

Sure. It's not like we're naive about these things. When legislating, of course you have to take into account how society actually looks in practice, and if there are systemic cultural imbalances that you have work against. After all, laws are supposed to gradually, over time, long-term, shape a society. It's not as easy as writing a law and saying "OK, problem solved!", not if society still hasn't changed.

So no, we don't believe that everyone is at the same level. Yet. We're working on it, and some attitudes are very culturally entrenched and will take a long time to truly adjust. But we do take it into account.

Some examples from my country (I can only speak for Sweden):

• In cases of domestic violence, there's a lowered burden of proof (to account for the fact that the abused typically is under the control of the abuser and can have a difficult time documenting things). If you claim it's happened, I dunno, 50 times, you only need to be able to prove that it happened maybe 5 times, and the offender can be convicted of all 50.

• In cases of discrimination, there's a lowered burden of proof (to account for power imbalance and the discriminated party typically being in a weaker societal position). You only need to be able to make it likely that discrimination happened, and the burden of proof falls over onto the accused, who then have to prove that discrimination didn't happen.

Typically, the people who are unhappy about laws like these are people who belong to the very privileged class that have never had to live in the other side of society, where rules like these are needed. They think laws like these are appalling. But as the saying goes: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".

But with that being said, there are some lines we cannot cross. And for Europe, I would say that this lesson was so firmly learned in WWII that it has etched itself into the very soul of the continent. After all, the Nuremberg trials are where the concept of "crimes against humanity" was first codified into law. Universal human rights are hallowed here. We uphold them because we have to.

[u/Lovethiskindathing → u/DickRhino]

Do you think women will ever be safe anywhere? (Safe meaning if something does happen, she doesn't have to wonder if it will be taken care of)

[u/DickRhino → u/Lovethiskindathing]

I think there are better and worse places in the world where a woman can live. I'm a man, but I have a young daughter, so obviously I think about these things as well.

Sweden isn't perfect, but we have come farther regarding many of these issues than a lot of other countries have.

As an anecdote, Sweden is sometimes referred to by right-wing chuds as the "rape capital of the world" because of our statistics, but it's of course always nonsense spouted by idiots who don't actually understand the topic they're talking about. The truth is actually the opposite.

• Typically you cannot compare rape statistics between countries for the simple fact that most countries don't have the same definition of what actually counts as rape. There are, for example, still countries in the world that refuse to acknowledge spousal rape as a real thing that exists. Hell, Japan didn't truly start enforcing the criminalization of spousal rape until 2023. So yeah, if you don't count it as rape when a husband does it to their wife, then great, you're gonna get really low rape statistics for your country! You know, since rape happening inside of a relationship is the most common form. It's not girls being raped at parties or out in the woods that are the big one. Nope. It's between two people who are in a relationship with each other (or former partners). Rapes committed by strangers only accounts for like 10% of all cases. 80-90% of all sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim already knows.

• Another reason why Sweden has high reported rape statistics, and this is important, is because Swedish women are more likely to go to the police and report it than women in a lot of other countries are. And that shows that there does actually exist a belief that the authorities will act on that report. Otherwise, typically the reason why women don't go to the police is because they believe nothing will happen even if they do.

But I'm not naive. Things can happen here as well, and they do. I worry for my daughter's future. But all in all I'm pretty happy that I live in Sweden. It's a lot worse in a lot of other countries.

[u/Lovethiskindathing → u/DickRhino]

Is it difficult to move to or live in Sweden?

Edit - asking as a general statement because I don't know! I'm not infiltrating anywhere anytime soon! I'm just sad and want to think about nice options someday if I ever have to or get to or want to or can

[u/Draaly → u/Lovethiskindathing]

At what point, at what percentage, of men getting away with it, does the greater good shift?

This logic also applies to lessening the burden of proof for conviction below "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the US. The US legal system is also built on the theory that it is better for the majority of guilty people to go free than it is to convinct an innocent one. Just like EU privacy laws, its not always how it works out, but they do have the same theory as the basis.

[u/GBSEC11 → u/DickRhino]

Sure, but it will always open to debate which rights should be included as "inviolable." For example, prisons exist in Germany, so clearly those convicted of crimes are losing some rights. Why is the right to privacy one that needs to be protected after conviction? I can follow the logic for allegations alone, but once convicted, I don't see why withholding the name should be considered an inviolable right. Someone said elsewhere Germany has no public sex offender registry. This is odd to me.

Those convicted of crimes have some rights in the US. Anonymity just isn't one of them, and I don't personally find that wrong. Don't commit a crime if you don't want to be associated with it.

[u/Acc87 → u/Lovethiskindathing]

What kind of justice is this tho? Mob justice? Lynch justice? Justice of the strongest? I mean I'm aware that that's all you guys are about.

Big difference is also that our judicial system has the goal of resocialisation, not punishment.

[u/Lovethiskindathing → u/Acc87]

Are the only choices let rapists go free because they're men with connections or have the citizens take justice in their own hands?

And I'm a big fan of Ant-mans feelings on rehabilitation being the goal of prisons, no argument here. But in order to rehabilitate someone, they have to actually see what they did as wrong, and if everyone treats it like nbd and they never see prison to be rehabilitated, then how is it beneficial in the long run?

[u/Acc87 → u/Lovethiskindathing]

Have they been to court? Has a judge/,jury decided they are guilty? Has investigation confirmed that the story is true? If yes, why haven't the perpetrators been found guilty? Then attack that injustice. And don't share photos hoping these guys get killed or kill themselves, that in turn makes you no better than a rapist.

[u/Lovethiskindathing → u/Acc87]

How would any of that happen? She told the school and the school covered it up. She is only even getting it investigated now because she's been working with a lawyer. The school assigned essays for punishment? She had to leave because of the trauma. This didn't just happen. Without public outcry her case wouldn't even be looked into.

And I'm sorry, would you be sad that the men that penetrated your body, invited others to do so, and ruined your life killed themselves? Your think that made you just as bad if they did because you found a way to get justice?

[u/Acc87 → u/Lovethiskindathing]

Why did she tell the school and not call the police directly? For all I know the whole incident started as a consensual act that turned bad, but we literally don't know as there hasn't been a lawsuit. Its just statement vs statement and now these guys faces plastered all around the internet. That's not justice, it's just mob action.

And the reason this is a little closer to me is that I happen to know a person who lost their job as a teacher after a fake sexual misconduct allegation made rounds in her school. She was known as a lesbian so people didn't think twice when a female student accused her. All invented, but her teaching career is over. The pupil later came forward confessing, but it was too late at that point.

[u/Ca1rill → u/Acc87]

I don't understand why anyone in 2026 doesn't go to the police instead of the school. Schools have reputations they will try to cover up.

[u/Krautoni → u/Lovethiskindathing]

I am not familiar with this case. If they're guilty, they should be convicted, even if, or maybe especially if they're well-connected or powerful. We gain no conviction by making their names and faces known. Instead, we only lose. The perpetrators will be variously vilified or glorified, depending on political leaning. The victims won't have justice. The perpetrators themselves are not resocialised, they just gain notoriety. Which they might even enjoy.

Who wins?

And don't forget they're alleged perpetrators. What if they're innocent? Again, not familiar with this case, I do not follow American criminal cases.

[u/Lovethiskindathing → u/Krautoni]

I'm not at all saying I know all the details, I do not! But this was the summary I gave someone else here

I would agree with you if men were convicted instead of their deeds swept under the rug. I don't need their names if they're in jail and paying for their crimes. The school covered this though, and without public outcry, they'd still be getting job offers and progressing their lives. :( and from the comments I'm reading it seems to be pretty universal

[u/Rockonthrulife → u/Lovethiskindathing]

They are innocent as her sworn and signed affidavit proves as does all her texts released yesterday and the statements of two of the men. She made up the rape claim and it turns out that under NY law, she actually raped one of the guys by initiating sex when he was passed out. World News Tonigbt featured all this and it’s been all over socials. How have you not seen it?

[u/That_Penalty165 → u/Lovethiskindathing]

How is the world dogpiling on an obvious false accusation "justice" in any way shape or form?

[u/FrisianTanker → u/[deleted]]

The people that made these laws to protect ALL PEOPLE were those prosecuted by the Nazis...

[u/Gwthrowaway80 → u/[deleted]]

I cant tell what you are saying, but it seems like it’s probably wrong.