Even examine carefully is far too much imo. That's a scary proposition for a lot of victims. I don't think the problem of false accusations is a serious one and there's already more than enough hazzard in coming forward.

Also I dont think this is correct The doubt is because there's often little hard evidence and a prevailing culture (hopefully changing) to dismiss victims as culpable in some way for what happened to them.

Eh again we will not find much common ground here.

The basis of western law is founded on a principle that is summed up lightly by the statement 'it is better if 10 guilty men walk free then one innocent one being convicted.'

It recognizes that it is a greater crime to punish or take away the liberty of a person who did not crime than for a guilty one to walk.

I think most would agree with that principle if they don't take the 10 for 1 as literal.

Examining carefully is the best way to ensure no abuse happens in the system to either the accuser or the accused.

I cannot see how a superficial look and judgement would serve either party better. Careful and diligent examinations that lead to a judgement, one way or the other are the best thing.

and if you want change my word "largely" to "in part" if that makes it easier for you to agree with as neither of us can quantify which factors impact it most and I think you would agree that horribly abusive false accusations would, in fact, make some women hesitant as they know society may be less inclined to believe due to them.

It looks like we wont find much common ground.

I agree with this
but

I think it's tiny compared to both a) the reasons that already make them hesitant and b) any thought they might be prosecuted or subjected to an official investigation for a #metoo

What makes you think innocent women would be prosecuted for doing a legit #metoo or that they would fear such prosecutions?

Sure false prosecutions happen in every crime area but I have never heard anyone say we should not investigate a potential crime area as it may lead to a false prosecution?

I feel you have created an irrational fear that I think few would see as a barrier to filing a legit #metoo. And in fact there has never been a prohibition against them being charged if they file false allegations. Currently and prior it could be done.

The problem between accusation and the right to have a crime against you investigated is very real.

For example: A rape is a horrible crime, it must be taken seriously, investigated to the full extent and hopefully the perpetrator brought to some level of justice. Simultaneously, an accusation of rape is detrimental and being investigated for it can leave your life in ruins, the "innocent until proven guilty" can be rather meaningless then.

This is problematic and very difficult to resolve.

That natural tension does exist but i do believe the fundamental underlying premise of law that...

'we should not accept that any innocent person should be wrongly convicted to make prosecutions easier and more successful' (my paraphrase of "10 guilty...")

...Needs to be re-affirmed and recognized as the most important factor here and thus that tension must be addressed in other ways that do not make it more likely innocent but accused people will face more harm because accusers face none.

I hope to provide some links before diving back in to the previous bit we discussed. When i have some time ...

but I think the answer lies in a gap concept more than a moral hazzard one. We should believe the victim but introduce a gap so that we don't let that automatically mean that the accused is guilty. Legally we do this easily with the burden of proof but we also need to do it with it the way we think about it with the victim and the accused.

"The victim and the accused' is the key in my view. Believing the victim does not simply convert 'accused' to 'perpetrator'. There's still a judgement to be made as to whether there's sufficient evidence for that.

"Believe all women" is one of the more dangerous legal concepts that has arisen in the last decades.

All accusers deserve objective and fair examinations of their claims with conclusions drawn from that.

But no one should be granted the presumption of 'belief' or that what they say is automatically true without or regardless of verification.

Regardless, as soon as the accusation is leveled the accusation usually extracts its toll on the accused.

we have seen that time after time with Fathers accused wrongly by mothers of child abuse or spousal abuse by bitter ex's that even once vindicated the cost is high.

Its 'believe the victim' and we fundamentally disagree. The far bigger problem has been victims of sexual crimes not being believed.

It doesn't mean that the belief wont be changed if evidence of fowl play emerges. Same as with any other crime. It also doesn't mean you find the accused guilty because there's what I called 'the gap' created by some burden of proof.

yeah. believing that there are more false accusations than there are real accusations that aren't believed is a pretty massive tell.

the latter is normally larger by orders of magnitude.

Is 'believe all victims' or "she had it comin" the only two options or something? Because that seem like the most idiotic horseshit imaginable.

Does understanding that too many real accusations aren't being believed have to lead to all victims being believed? I assume this isn't even a thing in the US, right? Fake news?

That's a big problem. Lets fix that **** by throwing innocent people in jail. That'll teach em.

what about the burden of proof, gap point?

Ask a question, Chez. Burden of proof and believe the victim don't well together.

I am not saying 'victims being believed' or not, is not a big issue.

I am saying I think more women (victims) will end up being believed, thus alleviating the problem you say, if women who would give false accusations were more deterred from doing so.

You seem to equate directly that deterring false accusations and prosecuting them when found, will deter real victims. I see it the other way.

I missed it. Who is saying or suggesting that.

As I would agree. That would be nutty thinking.

And that is kind of my point.

Part (i say again 'part') of the reason many woman (victims) face disbelief, is because we all have seen a large number of false accusations exposed where the accuser faced no prosecution/penalties no matter the damage done to the accused.

Penalties do deter some percent of such falsehoods. So if there were penalties others would be more inclined to believe a accuser if they know that person knows they face penalties if its found out they are lying.

Its not an all or none thing but it is an improvement.

I disagree. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of all good justice systems. Different burdens of proof apply in the different areas of justice (criminal, civil, social)

As long as you don't incorrectly think that believing the victim it's itself proof the accused is guilty then there's no problem at all.

Considering the minor penalties, that doesn't seem altogether unfair. People really should not do that kind of thing and it's a serious matter.

I wouldn't call it 'the basis of western law', but it's known as the 'Blackstone ratio' and is well known throughout common-law countries (those that derive their legal systems from England & Wales). Though originally just a remark in Blackstone's Commentaries in the 18th century, it was mentioned by an English judge on the record in about 1831 as 'a maxim of English law' and has been accepted as such ever since. Other and earlier commentators gave different ratios, Ben Franklin favouring a ridiculous 100 to 1 and Moses Maimonides an even more ridiculous 1000 to 1. If taken literally, this would mean that anyone who denies a crime must be acquitted, which would not be wise. And Blackstone was writing at a time when death was the penalty for any felony. It was usually commuted, but it was still on the books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if unjust acquittals did outnumber unjust convictions by ten to one. Wouldn't be surprised at all. Half of all jury trials in England & Wales result in acquittal, and it's unlikely that anything like half of the defendants against whom the Crown Prosecution Service believe there is a serious case are factually innocent.

The principle is not speaking to unjust acquittals V unjust convictions.

The principle is saying that when citizens vest a State with the authority to punish wrong doing, one of the biggest offenses a State can make is wrongly taking away an innocent mans liberty with a wrongful guilty verdict.

They are saying that is far worse than a State wrongly lets a guilty man walk free.

A guilty man walking free denies the victim his recompense and that is wrong but that is less wrong than a State empowered by its people being the agent victimizing its citizenry.

"Amy Cooper made a second, previously unreported call to police and repeated the accusation, adding that the man "tried to assault her," the DA's office said."

Horrible human being, and sadly there are plenty of people like her out there.

"In the aftermath of the video, Amy Cooper's employer fired her and her dog was temporarily given to a shelter before being returned to her care."
The dog must live a tortured life.

I had read internet blurbs that people at the company she worked for were always scared she would file false charges against them. Nobody would go near her.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/amy-cooper...nity%20service.

I’m curious to people who think this Karen should be charged with a crime believe the actor in Chicago who filed a false report be charged? I believe police claim to have spent a lot of money investigating that “incident”.

Yes, charge them both.

In these exact cases, yes because of how blatant and inexcusable they were, but the argument against it is that you'll have fewer people reporting actual crimes for fear of consequences. They're not entirely wrong.