Skip to main content

The American Guilt Paradox

With all of these sexual harassment and assault allegations coming to fruition in recent weeks, we've continually been told, "Always believe the accusers." As a victim of sexual abuse myself, I tend to agree with those sentiments. However, given the fact that, in a court of law, we're told to treat a defendant as innocent until proven guilty, this mentality serves as quite the perplexing paradox. If we were to combine the two, it'd read, "One is innocent until proven guilty, but always believe the accusers" or "Always believe the accusers, yet one is innocent until proven guilty." Like I said, perplexing...

So how do we walk that fine line? How do we not publicly convict a person before they've had their fair trial, yet also take an accuser's words seriously? Is that even possible? If I always believe the accuser, I'll see the alleged perpetrator as guilty until proven innocent. If I always view the alleged perpetrator as innocent until proven guilty, I won't be fully buying into the accuser's story. So, again, where do we draw the line?

Having been abused when I was 8 years old, it may have literally killed me had I opened up about the incident and been accused of lying. Yet, 28 years later, I have to wonder, if I hadn't have had evidence, what would a jury have decided? What would have happened to my abuser? To me? To other potential victims down the road? So where do we draw the line? I, unfortunately, don't have an answer to that question. While I like to believe in the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty, it's also incredibly difficult for me not to believe an accuser when it comes to allegations of sexual improprieties. Yeah, this is what seemingly happens when emotions and the legal system collide...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more