We can’t allow the victim the benefit of re-evaluating their history without judgement without giving the alleged perpetrator the same courtesy, surely?īearing in mind I am specifically talking about grey area situations where there is the potential that miscommunication was a factor rather than Bill Cosby drug rapes. The victims often say “I didn’t fully process it at the time but in hindsight it’s clear that my autonomy was violated.” and we say “That’s totally understandable.” But when the alleged perpetrator says “I didn’t realise at the time I was crossing a line” we say “BULLSHIT YOU’RE A RAPIST”. One of the key factors of so many of these recent allegations is the passing of large amounts of time before they are made public. But we as strangers, and the court as an institution that must uphold the integrity of justice (precedent can impact subsequent rulings for decades), need to remain clinical.īearing in mind that consent is rarely the the black and white cut and dry scenario that it’s made out to be, we can easily sympathise with a victim of a situation without unquestioningly accepting that someone has committed a crime against them. The family and friends of the victim can be as emotional as they need to be to hopefully make it through an experience.
#DUSTWIND AVENUE WOW FREE#
While you may say ‘better 99 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned’ that’s pretty damn cold comfort to the victims of those 99 men.
The system is set up to protect perpetrators, not victims. Just spend a minute thinking about all the reasons why the vast majority of sexual abuse cases are unreported or not followed through by victims. Internet debating points really don’t cut it when dealing with actual trauma and just feed into the narrative of empowered people telling disempowered people how things ‘should work’. I do suggest you speak to more survivors of abuse and try and understand the wide range of perspectives they have. As a practical social reality, bound by all the various issues of power and control that cloud the issue, it’s not as simple as you make out, unfortunately. But the reality is, to an actual victim, not having the crime and perpetrator acknowledged shifts the blame onto them.Īnd that is the issue with ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Please don’t take this the wrong way – I understand your intentions are good. If you deny a victim’s experience, you are most certainly not helping them. Your approach is entirely clinical – and as a result, strays into victim blaming territory because actual acknowledgment is required to avoid that. And that’s the problem with all your analogies and reasoning here.
0 kommentar(er)
