Comments on: “Don’t jump to conclusions, let’s just wait and see if… OMG SHE’S A LIAR JUST LIKE TAWANA BRAWLEY LET’S PROSECUTE HER RIGHT NOW”

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:21:43 +0000

The third poster nailed it. Jill can hardly criticise people who jump on the “OMG liar!” bandwagon before all the evidence is in when she jumped on the “OMG guilty!” bandwagon with even less evidence. Neither of these extreme views of the case are creditable.

By: Raging Moderate

Raging Moderate — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:57:17 +0000

johnieB:

When I said ““I call it a mental health problem that should be corrected”, I was referring to people who assume that the accuser is “lying until proven truthful” as well as those who assume the accused are guilty.

Switching “mental health problem” to “dysfunction” works for me.

I’d be happy to continue the discussion off-thread. How?

By: johnieB

johnieB — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:52:05 +0000

Raging Moderate,
“I call it a mental health problem that should be corrected.”
I have dealt with a similiar issue for the past forty years. Characterizing it as a “mental health problem” tends towards a “blame the victim” definition. It ignores the social dimensions of becoming “normal” in what, in many ways, is a dysfunctional society: patriarchal and imperialist.

Confronting that dysfunction or, as I prefer, evil, directly, is not a universal experience. I find the designation “mental health problem” for those who have had such experiences an arrogant putdown, which obscures rather than promotes understanding and blocks constructive change.
If you don’t get it, as I suspect may be the case, I am willing to take this off-thread so as not to make this discussion overly long.

By: Andreas

Andreas — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:43:49 +0000

Oops. Posting from my partner’s computer. Sorry about the name mix-up.

– ACS

By: Raging Moderate (aka Dr. Pepper)

Raging Moderate (aka Dr. Pepper) — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:13:25 +0000

P.S. Thanx for the back and forth, Lauren. I’ll go bug some bible-thumpin’ homo-haters for a while (the ones who don’t believe computers are evil).

Take care.

By: Raging Moderate (aka Dr. Pepper)

Raging Moderate (aka Dr. Pepper) — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:06:15 +0000

“I’ve stated plainly several times that I am biased in favor of victim’s rights”

I am in favor of victim’s rights too. I believe any accuser has the right to have the authorities fully investigate any crime he /she alleges.

I don’t see how assuming one accused of a crime to be guilty is a victim’s right. Investigating an allegation before declaring it to be true is not victimizing a victim again. It is the skepticism required to find the truth (some accusers lie, most accused lie). If the authorities dismiss the allegations out of hand and refuse to investigate, that would be victimizing the victim again.

“You call this a mental health problem that should be corrected, while I call it a political choice.

Why is it that we yell “innocent until proven guilty” for alleged rapists and “lying until proven truthful” for alleged rape victims?”

For many of those who do so, they call it a political choice. I call it a mental health problem that should be corrected.

By: Sara

Sara — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 05:06:11 +0000

That’s not quite what I meant, zuzu, Lauren. What I meant is that a lot of people believe that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is a valid or useful way of looking at crime in the real world. It’s a huge defect in perception — the belief that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ describes not just justice in a world where the court has limited knowledge, but the way the world works itself. It’s as though they believe that the court itself retroactively determines reality rather than just making absolutely sure that what happened did happen.

This is an issue separate from the “sluts make false accusations” and “Gus from CSI got better results, so she must be lying!!!1!!” bullshit that half the posters on this thread seem to be peddling.

I was trying to make a sort of narrow point, but I think it came out broader than it should’ve.

– ACS

By: Sara

Sara — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 04:49:20 +0000

That’s not quite what I meant, zuzu, Lauren. What I meant is that a lot of people believe that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is a valid or useful way of looking at crime in the real world; that is, that unless someone is convicted in a court of law, no crime actually occurred. This just isn’t the way the world works. It’s a huge defect

By: John

John — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 04:35:33 +0000

According to Tucker Carlson, it's different cause she's a stripper:

I'm merely saying that her testimony about matters of sex is to be taken by ordinary commonsense people a little differently than the testimony of someone who isn't a crypto-hooker.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 03:08:51 +0000

Not to criticize you, but ‘innocent until proven guilty’ implies that that the victim is lying.

No offense taken. The flipside to the statement is that the victim is incredible.