Being For Due Process For The Accused Shouldn't Mean You're Smeared As Being For Rape
But it too often does. And in that, it's reminiscent of the hysteria that had people falsely accusing preschool teachers and operators of Satanic worship and ritual sexual abuse of children, Fredrik deBoer points out. These charges were "wildly implausible," a New York Times reporter observed, yet they were brought and people were convicted. Dozens of people, who actually served prison time.
Fredrik deBoer blogs about very similar hysteria now -- that of those who screech at and call for the head on a pike of anyone saying the accused in sexual assault accusations must have due process:
But even the most mundane calls for avoiding a rush to judgment -- not just due process in a court room, but fairness outside of one, given the immense damage these accusations can do to someone's reputation -- now results in immediate, angry condemnation. And, inevitably, the enforcement mechanism that people bring to bear in this debate:"Y'know, it's fascinating how often I see you worrying about accused rapists' lives being hypothetically ruined by internet commenters who don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt. This is doubtless unfair of me and will cause steam to come out of your ears, but your tireless efforts to save accused rapists from nonexistent problems makes me think you're taking such accusations a little too personally."
In other words, if you make the case for due process and basic fairness for those accused of sex crimes, you must be a rapist. For the record, you can review my actual output and find that I don't actually make this case nearly as often as the commenter suggests, but the point remains the same: if you suggest that we shouldn't operate under a blanket presumption of guilt when accusations of sex crimes are made, you deserved to be accused in similar terms.
The commenters at Gawker are not, I'm sorry to say, out of step with many young progressives today. Many of the vaguely leftish young people I interact with now deride any reference to due process or rights of the accused, when it comes to sex crimes, as inherently evil, conservative, and misogynist. Indeed, the topic of rights of the accused for those who face allegations of sex crimes is now frequently dismissed with eye-rolling and the blanket assumption of bad faith, as if maintaining rights central to a free society is similar to conspiracy mongering about chemtrails.
This would be weird enough, but it becomes even more bizarre when you consider that we are in a moment of unprecedented attention for criminal justice reform. #BlackLivesMatter is one example of a broad, increasingly bipartisan, cross-ideological reckoning in this country with the sorry state of our criminal justice system. Distrust of cops and prosecutors is rampant, and not just among the left-wing anymore. Indeed, that distrust is frequently found among Gawker's commenters... in every case except for allegations of sex crimes.
...Ultimately, this question is not merely about the left's stance towards our police state. It's about the left's relationship to certainty. For a long time, I've pointed out that the idiom of the left is not just strong belief in the superiority of our values but utter certitude in our superior grasp of the facts. We don't merely argue that our side is correct, anymore; we argue that anyone who has not already realized that our side is correct is a buffoon, if not actively evil. On Twitter, the default left-wing critique is that of open-mouthed disbelief that people do not already believe what we think they should believe. I think, in the long run, this belief in the totalizing, frictionless perfection of our ideology leads to a very dark place indeed. I ask instead that we remember that doubt has always been a left-wing value.
Again, punch back twice as hard.
Don't have sex with your fellow students.
Do have the Title IX coordinator's phone number in your speed dial.
If someone hugs you without consent, file a complaint immediately
When women are the ones facing such accusations, this shit will stop.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 5, 2015 8:40 AM
When women are the ones facing such accusations, this shit will stop.
Its why lifetime alimony and exorbitant child support stopped.
Its why people are now saying its ridiculous to charge 17 year old girls with creating child porn, when they didnt think it odd to charge 17 year old boys for having it texted to them
But on the other hand it can back fire as well. Once more women started being arrested for domestic violence, primary aggressor laws were enacted to force the arrest of men if they were victims.
I do think guys need to press as many charges as possible. But its no guarantee that it will make the madness stop.
lujlp at August 5, 2015 8:54 AM
I do think guys need to press as many charges as possible. But its no guarantee that it will make the madness stop.
Posted by: lujlp at August 5, 2015 8:54 AM
It needs to be done to overload the system.
I think the higher education bubble will collapse here soon, and the successful schools will be the ones who have returned to a real mission.
Isab at August 5, 2015 9:34 AM
The broad coalition of the left wing has to come to some sort of understanding about these issues. Perhaps the decision will be that, to be a member of the left, you simply must believe all accusations of sexual violence by default.
That needs to be changed to "you simply must believe all accusations of [male] sexual violence by default."
Because no one believes accusations against women by default.
Hell, even when a woman admits to sexually assaulting an unconscious man they punish the man
lujlp at August 5, 2015 10:59 AM
Forgive me for being dense, but I'm having trouble understanding one point of this accusation made to Fredrik deBoer.
Can someone help me out with this? What "nonexistent problems" is this accuser talking about?
The damage to the accused rapist's reputation? Is that what he means? (I don't know if the accuser is a man or a woman, but somehow it reads more like a guy.) I would say that's a significant worry. It's like being an accused child molester or a racist. Can anyone truly live that down? Once you're accused of something like that, it's always a lingering doubt in the collective mind of the surrounding community.
Or did he think, after someone's been aquitted of molesting children, that their next door neighbor would still be perfectly fine with having him watch the kids for a few minutes while she goes to the store?
But that's only a guess. I have no idea what the accuser means by "nonexistent problems."
Patrick at August 5, 2015 5:11 PM
"it's reminiscent of the hysteria that had people falsely accusing preschool teachers and operators of Satanic worship and ritual sexual abuse of children."
I often find myself in a conversation with younger folks who aren't old enough to remember, or were not even born yet, when I bring up the McMartin preschool case; they often don't believe me.
Thankfully, we now have Google and Wikipedia. I tell them to look it up.
They are always amazed that such modern-day witch trials took place. (and some of those folks even served time in prison!)
Sigh, we never seem to learn from history.
charles at August 5, 2015 5:55 PM
Sigh, we never seem to learn from history
That because we strive very hard to avoid teaching it
lujlp at August 5, 2015 6:50 PM
Here is my solution:
Make colleges mandatory reporters of violent crimes
While suspect is awaiting trial, suspend them.
If they're found innocent, re-instate them
If they're found guilty, expel them
It still sucks for the suspect if they're innocent and forced to take a leave of absence, but not as much as it would if he were expelled.
Still sucks for the victim if the suspect is really guilty but found innocent, but at least they wouldn't have to see them during the time awaiting trial.
NicoleK at August 6, 2015 4:57 AM
Agree w/NicoleK and would require colleges to post letters on campus stating that in order to stop the horrific ongoing problem of violence against the college women that Fraternities desiring to participate in college activities are requested to specifically exclude that college's "women" from their parties.
Guys should be able to figure out "why" and go local or even other colleges.
Gotta make it HURT to encourage them to stop.
Bob in Texas at August 6, 2015 5:49 AM
"I often find myself in a conversation with younger folks who aren't old enough to remember, or were not even born yet, when I bring up the McMartin preschool case; they often don't believe me."
I lived in South Florida when all that was happening. And yes, it was exactly the same sort of moral panic. And yes, if you mentioned anything about the due process rights of the accused, you were immediately branded as a child molester yourself. Janet Reno was behind most of those prosecutions in Florida, and she talked openly about prosecuting those who dared to question her charges or methods. (How paranoid is it of me to think that the reason Bill Clinton appointed her as Attorney General was because she had something on him? She was exactly the sort of person who could, and had the ambition and gall to, blackmail a President.) Innocent people did years, some decades, in prison. (And for people who complain about the cost of child care today: this is why.)
The whole "recovered memories" fraud was invented for these prosecutions. And yes, that same technique was used in rape prosecutions, until enough scientific study demonstrated its non-existence that courts were no longer able to accept it as evidence.
Cousin Dave at August 6, 2015 7:47 AM
Agree w/NicoleK and would require colleges to post letters on campus stating that in order to stop the horrific ongoing problem of violence against the college women that Fraternities desiring to participate in college activities are requested to specifically exclude that college's "women" from their parties.
Why not also ban sororities from being allowed to have men at their parties?
After all women do commit nearly half of all sexual assaults.
lujlp at August 6, 2015 7:59 AM
Not including sororities on purpose (evil cackle).
OBVIOUSLY, women are not to blame here so they should not be included (chuckle chuckle).
When the fraternities (finally) realize that they can get drunk and laid w/locals, and the sororities also realize that the guys are getting drunk and laid w/locals, things will change.
Nothing like being disinvited to the parties to get these girls' attention.
Bob in Texas at August 6, 2015 5:04 PM
DeBoer questions a seeming contradiction in his blog, which isn't actually a contradiction at all. It makes perfect sense why young progressives are extremely "skeptical" about black/cop controversies, and totally non-skeptical about rape accusations.
A black guy getting arrested or assaulted by a (white) cop is instantly believed to be innocent, and anybody who disagrees is a racist bigot. Because it follows the "Whites oppressors, blacks oppressed" rule.
A guy getting accused of rape or sexual assault by a woman is instantly believed to be guilty, and anybody who disagrees is a sexist bigot. Because it follows the "Man oppressors, woman oppressed" rule.
There is no actual skepticism happening anywhere, just blind and furious adherence to faiths.
Hiru at August 12, 2015 12:35 AM
Leave a comment