Quote:
Originally Posted by gaming_mouse
Some people try to use these false claims to discredit the legitimate claims of real victims, and others try to protect the real victims by pretending that no false claims exist. But both positions are wrong. I think we should have a strong bias in favor of victim's claims, but we can't pretend they are sacrosanct and incorruptible, because that only increases their power and hence the motivation to fabricate them.
I strongly disagree with the bolded part. Happy with all the rest.
Innocent until proven guilty is, in my eyes, one of the key cornerstones of a free society. "Free" as in "free of oppression".
Taking any victim's claims very seriously and doing as much as you can to substantiate them? Now that is perfectly fine and should be the norm.
I have seen several cases where (as it turned out) false claims led to the marginalization of others.
In those cases, especially the high profile ones, the public is quick to dismiss the version from the accused and side with the perceived victim.
The consequences for the accused are severe and, to make matters worse, the judicial system takes years to clear that up. And at that point, hardly anyone takes notice.
More often than not, there is no notable public coverage of having the accused's name(s) cleared. Instead, the stigma of the initial accusation sticks stubbornly.