The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

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...