The new 'McCarthyism'

J'accuse!!....

It is all getting a bit out of hand now.. Anyone rich and/or famous seems fair game nowadays and the media seem to lap it up. Yes there are genuine cases but surely. as with any criminal or civil investigations , there needs to be at least some burden of proof resting with the plaintiff.

56 years ago FFS! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58239195


It is also concerning that of late, many people are being dismissed from jobs, removed from projects at the first sign of accusations long before the cases are heard in court. Trial, judgement and execution by media and public opinion. I do not know if this only happens to rich and famous people and ordinary people are not judged newsworthy or the famous and rich are targeted because they are famous and rich. There are certainly genuine cases of abuse but equally there must be some trying to exploit the current 'me-too' bandwagon.

 

Maybe she's telling the truth?

 

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. The point is that someone's reputation and life shouldn't be tuned based on maybe

 

I have absolutely no issue with anyone coming forward to report abuse whether it happened yesterday or 56 years ago. Victims deserve justice and abusers deserve punishment. However there's absolutely no way that anyone should be named and labelled as a sexual abuser based on an accusation alone. Guilt should be determined n a court room not on the front page of the bbc

 

I agree that people shouldn't be named and shamed until there is proof. However I take issue with your post implying that some victims are making it up. You have no proof of that and so you are ironically doing the very thing that you are railing against.

 

Maybe she is Helen and I did state in the OP that many cases are genuine but as ST has said above, the accusers are (rightly) allowed to remain anonymous, whilst the accused have no such protection and so, in the eyes of many are deemed guilty and their employers, fearing public opinion impacting their reputation and profits, 'pull the trigger' long before cases even get to court. That is not justice. furthermore, I cannot see a single case being brought without others coming forward to corroborate their story (i.e. it happened to me also) or she had confided in someone at some point (in this case over 56 years!). How do you prove it. I belive in these cases, unless there is sufficient evidence to pass the threshold of criminal charges, then civil actions should not be upheld. We are talking someone's career, livelhood, reputation and private life being destroyed based on heresay. Whilst there must be many legitimate claims , equally there must be a number of spurious ones. Unfortunately, once the accusations are made the social media troll leap into action. 'Mud sticks' !
IMO, the lomger someone waits (I am talking decades not days weeks months or a few years then teh burden of proof should increase accordingly. It is not like, for example, War crimes that were documented at the time and it took many years for the perpetrators to be identified and found, and in the interim evidence was gathered. Claiming something happened 56 years ago would and should require a lot of investigative work and evidence gathering before the case is even filed. Some of these seem to be one person's word against another.

 

In cases like this the initial response of the authorities HAS to be to take it seriously. Otherwise we all run the risk of allowing another Jimmy Saville to slip through society's fingers. It is the responsibility then of the judicial system to find out whether or not the accusations are genuine. To that extent I think its good that the media latch on to these stories as there is then more pressure on the judiciary to do its job. Without media intrusion/spotlight many of these potential cases would in my opinion be swept under the carpet, quiet deals struck, silence money paid etc... When in the public domain there is more transparency and accountability, again in my opinion. If Dylan is proven guilty then he should be legally hammered. If he's proven innocent then it should be clearly stated that he has not got a blot on his character. I wouldn't go so far as to punish a false accuser however as that will dissuade other genuine accusers in future from coming forward. People will disagree with me on a lot of this I'm sure.

 

It's a different l legal system in America now though. Plus, because the victims of sexual assault are coming forward and being believed more maybe she's now realised that what happened to her wasn't right and she now feels strong enough to hold him to account.

 

Nonsense what a bizarre statement. I counter that you have no proof that some are are NOT making it up. That is the whole point of my OP and the legal system .
My post challenges , not that a particular case is spurious or made up but that the whole process favours the plaintiff, starting with anonymity for the accuser and not the accused. Your implication is that all these cases are genuine. Has every one of these cases resulted in convictions? If not then some must be spurious, unless you are one of those who decide the accused was guilty but only got off through lack of evidence. It is the burden of proof I am concerned with and the trial by media

 

You called the thread "the new McCarthyism", I'm sure you know what that implies.

Erm, isn't the point of your post that the burden of proof should lie with people making statements and not the other way round?

That's a clear logical fallacy - lack of conviction does not mean that the accusation was false.

 

She could also, being America, using it as a way to get a lot of money from someone rich!! Again, if there is sufficient evidence, then criminal charges should be brought. I am unhappy that the threshold and burden of proof is so much lower in civil actions which is usually (in the U.S).all about the money. Many lawyers jump on the band wagon... no win-no fee knowing if they do they get a substantial proportion of the damages.
In truth neither you or I know , and probably never will, know if she is telling the truth. Your viewpoint seems on the face of it to favour the accuser using an argument that is pure guesswork. The evidence and only the evidence should be considered and not what you think her motivation for bringing this case after 56 years. No.one will ever know. I certainly do not. At no time in any of my posts have I expressed that this person has 'made this up' that is for the courts to determine.

 

In the eyes of the law it usually does. Evidence rather than one persons word against another. If a civil action fails with its lower threshold of proof then it is pretty damning.

 

Yes but I believe this is a civil action brought by the accuser and not the State. Unfortunately regarding " not got a blot on his character" ... what world are you living in? Mud sticks. How do you respond to the recent cases where people lose jobs, have contracts cancelled, before a case come to court. There is no restitution when found not guilty as there are many people on social media who argue... just because it could not be proved does not mean he was not guilty. Mud sticks!!

 

The threshold in a civil case is the balance of probabilities, so 50%. I find it interesting that you are happy to interpret a failed case as being "damning" for the accuser but regard any "guilty" judgment against the accused to be unsafe given that the probabilities are essentially symmetrical.

 

What you say here doesn't tally with your thread title.

I agree that there should be anonymity for accused perpetrators if deemed safe to do so by authorities, though.

 

You make stuff up! Where did I say a guilty judgement is unsafe. Nor did I say ALL failed cases are 'damning' Try reading the whole OP again.

 

I wont be debating with you anymore Tekky as one of your main tactics on here seems to try and belittle other people. Look at your posts if you don't know what I mean. This is a forum where people type text and we should be careful to make sure our words do not come over as patronising/belittling. People sometimes don't though and then threads become abusive. You've already subtly belittled Mansfield-Red. At the moment he/she's not abused you for it. You've now belittled me twice (on another thread as well) simply because I've stated and tried to explain my view. My views may be inaccurate, misguided or plain wrong but I do contribute occasionally on here and do, I hope, give people pause for reflection on a small number of occasions. I'm not willing to discuss issues with another poster if I'm simply seen to be talking 'nonsense' or living in a different world. In this thread I did say specifically some people will disagree with me but I still got ridiculed. Fair enough.

 

Yes, it should be kept anonymous until proven guilty, like that “premier league footballer” one was/is.

 

Why else would you want the burden of proof to increase over time?

Your words:

 

On reflection, I should have used a different title. Rightly or wrongly though, My point was trial by public opinion which happens outside the justice system evidenced by recent situations of accused actors having series cancelled, removed from films and contract terminated immediately after accusations are made is a relatively new phenomena and on the increase. This mirrors the original Salem witch-hunts and the McCarthy era. My point was NOT an indictment of the victims but the media and public response to this new Era. It kind of tied in with your second point and the one I made regarding anonymity for both parties.

I vehemently disagree with the poster who argued that naming and shaming pre trial puts it into the public domain for transparency and accountability. It is NOT a level playing field and speculation in the media and public opinion could sway a jury (either way). That is wrong.