While I understand the outrage over the word seemingly discrediting what the victim (and evidence) claim, it's used as more of a legal safeguard. Any major news organization could be sued for libel or slander if somehow, in SOME unlikely way, he turned out not to be the person who had raped that little girl.
In my opinion, while it is pretty fucked up that even with overwhelming evidence the word 'allegedly' is used, I think actually witnessing the event happening is one of the only few ways you can really use the word with absolute certainty.
Currently I'm trying to get an individual banned from anime conventions across the country. He sexually assaulted my friend right in front of me, and there have been a few other girls that have come forward to me with tales of their experiences with him. Like I said above, I can totally understand your reaction to the word 'allegedly.' He can't get banned from any conventions until he is actually convicted of sexual assault since the supposed "allegations" are not enough to break off the contractual agreement. They have to be proven in a court of law before he can be banned from the very conventions that give him access to the very women he assaults.
Unfortunately part of his scheme is getting girls from southern states and bringing them to work for him at conventions in states farther up north. Oftentimes these girls don't come forward because they feel doing so will jeopardize their ability to get home (since he buys the plane tickets).
So here's some food for thought for the others who've replied: the word allegedly is a safeguard for the accused, but what sort of safeguards are there for the victim? The legal system obviously isn't working in their favor.
MDS (Bombing Division)
· 1 year ago
Good Lord, does this REALLY have to be explained to you?
The reason that the word "allegedly" turns up is that nothing has been proven in a court of law. The same standard is applied to any other form of crime. If he'd been found sitting in a room with a four year old's head caved in and was coated in blood there would still have to be a trial over the matter assuming that he pleaded innocent.
The reason for this is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and if you are declared a thief, a rapist, a murderer or an anything in a newspaper and one of the people in your trial has picked up a newspaper, or spoken with someone who has talked about that topic, then it is going to be very difficult for you to receive a fair trial. In print, after all, you are already a thief, a rapist, a murdered, or an anything.
This is also why people's criminal records are kept quiet: the job of a court is to work out whether they've done the crime they're accused of, knowing their past record is an irrelevance to that.
And throwing around 80% is absurd. 20% is substantially more than you need to go "Beyond reasonable doubt".
eric
· 1 year ago
You're totally right. In fact, the state should be able to execute people before they are convicted of a crime. Not guilty? Oh well.
rumpole of the bailey
· 10 months ago
To assume someone is telling the truth just becuase they are female and say they have been raped is not only offensive to the victims of false allegations, but is so utterly naive and sexist you should remove your comments.
If men are capable of rape, then surely women are capable of telling lies? Or is it that you do not believe in equality, or only when it suits women?
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, you would do well to remember that. Of course its only alleged until a jury decide its true. Or is it that you think one woman's word is worth more than the consideration of 12 people based on the evidence.
Assuming guilt is the thing that is not cool, it's stupid and shows ignorance of the basic principles of English Law.
I take it this is an American blog. I know you don't have very stringent contempt of court laws, but any newspaper in Britain taking your advice would be taken to court by the attorney general. It being illegal to try and prejudice a Jury.
All Comments
In my opinion, while it is pretty fucked up that even with overwhelming evidence the word 'allegedly' is used, I think actually witnessing the event happening is one of the only few ways you can really use the word with absolute certainty.
Currently I'm trying to get an individual banned from anime conventions across the country. He sexually assaulted my friend right in front of me, and there have been a few other girls that have come forward to me with tales of their experiences with him. Like I said above, I can totally understand your reaction to the word 'allegedly.' He can't get banned from any conventions until he is actually convicted of sexual assault since the supposed "allegations" are not enough to break off the contractual agreement. They have to be proven in a court of law before he can be banned from the very conventions that give him access to the very women he assaults.
Unfortunately part of his scheme is getting girls from southern states and bringing them to work for him at conventions in states farther up north. Oftentimes these girls don't come forward because they feel doing so will jeopardize their ability to get home (since he buys the plane tickets).
So here's some food for thought for the others who've replied: the word allegedly is a safeguard for the accused, but what sort of safeguards are there for the victim? The legal system obviously isn't working in their favor.
The reason that the word "allegedly" turns up is that nothing has been proven in a court of law. The same standard is applied to any other form of crime. If he'd been found sitting in a room with a four year old's head caved in and was coated in blood there would still have to be a trial over the matter assuming that he pleaded innocent.
The reason for this is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and if you are declared a thief, a rapist, a murderer or an anything in a newspaper and one of the people in your trial has picked up a newspaper, or spoken with someone who has talked about that topic, then it is going to be very difficult for you to receive a fair trial. In print, after all, you are already a thief, a rapist, a murdered, or an anything.
This is also why people's criminal records are kept quiet: the job of a court is to work out whether they've done the crime they're accused of, knowing their past record is an irrelevance to that.
And throwing around 80% is absurd. 20% is substantially more than you need to go "Beyond reasonable doubt".
If men are capable of rape, then surely women are capable of telling lies? Or is it that you do not believe in equality, or only when it suits women?
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, you would do well to remember that. Of course its only alleged until a jury decide its true. Or is it that you think one woman's word is worth more than the consideration of 12 people based on the evidence.
Assuming guilt is the thing that is not cool, it's stupid and shows ignorance of the basic principles of English Law.
I take it this is an American blog. I know you don't have very stringent contempt of court laws, but any newspaper in Britain taking your advice would be taken to court by the attorney general. It being illegal to try and prejudice a Jury.