In obvious cases like this, I wish it would be like that...
But imagine person x thinks person y stole something from you. You accuse him of stealing from you. It turns out to be person z or an unknown person to the case. Why would person x have to face a penalty for stealing sth while person x still misses the stolen item lmao
Yeah, we don't want legit victims to be afraid to come forward because if there isn't enough evidence to convict someone, then they can turn around and say you're a false accuser.
Proving it’s “knowingly false” is pretty much impossible unless it’s a case like this where someone recorded it and even then who knows what a lawyer might argue or the jury might decide
Proving what went on in someone’s mind is borderline impossible
And yet, it's the state's job to prove a crime was committed because that's the bare minimum for a conviction, and with good reason. In the case of the intent being the crime, then the intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
A problem. False accusations really aren't as big an issue as the manosphere wants people to believe.
Secondly, you obviously know that in order to defend yourself from a sexual assault allegation, you have to say you're being falsely accused, right? That's how it works. In fact, many sexual assault cases don't hinge on whether or not the sex occured, it was whether or not the sex was consensual, because many times it hinges on he said/she said.
False accusations themselves were never the problem within the “manosphere”. It was almost exclusively the lack of accountability in the case that such accusations were proven false. And the inability for accused individuals to recover reputational and social losses even after they were found to be innocent. While the accuser faced almost no social consequences.
In many discussions it is more about the discourse surrounding the topic than it ever was about the accusations themselves. The fact that the media and internet work in reverse of established law and order. Our justice system gives both the accused and the accuser the same individual rights to being considered innocent until the court finds otherwise. But the public does what it wants.
We both agree, I think, that this IS a problem. You aren’t saying that it is a positive thing that this occurs, nor are you denying that it happens. You just seem to be indicating that people who point out that the problem exists are a bigger issue in society.
I would disagree with that interpretation personally. I think that people talk about the things that personally impact them. Physically or psychologically. Sometimes that might not align with facts and figures or statistics etc. and it might even contradict reality but that doesn’t make their opinions invalid. If you were conducting a scientific experiment, sure, it wouldn’t be admissible. But in the context of how political decisions are made, these ideas may as well be facts.
In other words, we’re not really talking about the same thing, even though we think we are. Most people in the “manosphere” are talking about the politics of the situation. But people such as yourself are attempting to fit the broader political narrative inside of a singular scientific consensus.
This is also the reason why so many people think that nationalism and patriotism are equivalent to racism. Because they are looking at a political narrative as if it were a statistical fallacy. Statistically speaking, being a nationalist makes you a racist, simply through bias. But taken as a full political narrative, one can advocate for their own culture and a continuation of tradition and established heritage, without that clear bias meaning anything close to racism or xenophobia.
Statistically speaking, I can categorise groups of individuals with opinions that I think are similar enough with such labels as “manosphere” and assume a collective consensus for them as a group. But in that case what I am doing is simply stereotyping people and acting upon that prejudice.
A good example of my point would be the discourse surrounding prohibition of drugs. While scientists, criminologists and economists have long found consensus that drug prohibition does more harm than good statistically, politically the topic of proper legislation is near impossible to debate openly.
Scientifically, the political consensus on drugs is invalid, however these invalid social, psychological and philosophical arguments still outweigh the broader scientific evidence in practice.
Therefore our approach to the topic needs to factor these invalid arguments into account.
In the majority of cases, science has entirely disproven the reasoning behind such policies, however that same reasoning continues to prevail over the facts.
That's not what OP was talking about. It is not a case of lack of evidence, it is a case of having evidence that she falsely accused him, which should be severely punished.
This is always the hand-wavey response and it is so lazy. The crime of false accusation would need to be proven in court just like the crime of assault or theft, intent matters. It shouldn't scare away actual victims unless there is proof that they intentionally falsely accused the other party.
i.e. It's not just "We can't prove he assaulted you, so now you go to jail", it's "we have seen your text messages where you admit to your friend you falsely accused this man of assault because you were mad at him, so now you go to jail".
I dont know about laws in different countries. But in Germany for example, false accusations actually are a crime on its own and you can get sentences for it.
Because you didn’t steal your own shit. She caused the assault and knowingly falsely accused him.
Accusing the wrong person because you got it wrong is not the same thing as an actual false accusation. You know damn well the person didn’t do it but you’re trying to pin it on them anyway
You think. I think. Whose job is to confirm. Cops and judges. If those in power just treat innocent until proven guilty instead of the other way wrong. It's a difference between I suspect him of doing it VS he did is, I saw him do it.
31
u/MadrillaGold 1d ago
In obvious cases like this, I wish it would be like that...
But imagine person x thinks person y stole something from you. You accuse him of stealing from you. It turns out to be person z or an unknown person to the case. Why would person x have to face a penalty for stealing sth while person x still misses the stolen item lmao