How do you react to sexual assault/harassment accusations?

[DCPat]

Believing the accuser doesn't mean condemning the accused. You can do the former without the latter quite easily.

Click to shrink...

I go with the above.

It's a big discussion in the Netherlands at the moment aswell. We had a journalist/tv-maker (male) put a story in a newspaper how he was abused (by another male) working for a tv-program 15 years ago. He did not mention any name or started a lawsuit, because he was afraid for a defamation lawsuit. Off course everybody started shouting names, but that's another story. But not one person was singled out.

That was going on for about a week and then the accused person himself showed up with a lawyer at a late night tv programm. He said that the original story in the newspaper was about him and that they did have sex that night, but the rest of the story was false (no rape), they just were drunk and had some fun. The accused is going to the court for defamation and the victim now is also going to court for rape, 15 years later. Afterwards social media offcourse exploded against the accused and the tv-programm for giving the accused a podium.

It is so hard, because I want to believe everybody on their word, but it's not possible. I'm certainly not going to doubt the victim's story, because if it's true it's so devastating that people won't believe you. I have a harder time believing the accused, because as somebody else said, I've yet to see the first rapist to confess about it.

 

[Just_a_Mouse]

For example in Neil Degrasse Tyson case I'm just shocked

Click to shrink...

Wait. How did I miss hearing about this....what the fuck?! Not Neil too!

 

[Aske]

With compassion, I hope. I focus on the survivors when possible. I'll form my own opinions on the accused as information comes to light, and sometimes that means altering my behaviour with regards to them. But I'm not the "string em up" type. I want to see justice done.

 

[C4lukin]

I tend to side with the accuser, but it has gotten to the point where I think these accusations should be followed up on.

Maybe all of these people are guilty, but there is nothing stopping an accuser from destroying someone's name at this point just because of a vendetta.

Not to say that is currently happening, but it probably will. And I bet some innocent folk will be caught up in this mess. And once someone puts it out there, even if you defend yourself and win, that stigma will still follow you.

But Hollywood is so fucked up right now, and just about everyone seemed to know about it, so is anyone truly innocent? There needs to be a giant cleansing of all of those involved in this shit storm.

 

[SHAQ]

The length of time it takes the accuser to make the accusation weighs heavily on me unfortunately. We just got hit with two back-to-back 30 year old claims (Spacey and NDT) which leaves me wondering WTF?

 

[Inuhanyou]

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Click to shrink...

That's a damn slippery slope if i ever did see one.

 

[PoppaBK]

Your brain could consider the tracked rates of false accusations. From my time in HR, I learned a great many stats on the subject, and basically, it was hugely in favor of accusations being accurate and actionable, in the over-90% range. By the time victims actually speak up, the harassment or assault is so severe that it is provable.

Therefore it is reasonable to believe accusers by default, and only switch over to disbelief if allegations are proved false, keeping in mind that allegations may not be either actionable OR false.

Click to shrink...

If it is so easy to determine if an accusation is accurate and actionable then why not assume innocence until proven guilt is established?

 

[psychowave]

Believing the accuser is the safest choice considering fake accusations are very rare.

 

[DuffMan]

I try and remain neutral until evidence from either party has been put forward. That's not go discount or belittle the alleged victims claim, but innocent until proven guilty and all that.

 

[blinky]

Unfortunately, I am now in a position where I have to deal with stuff like this at work. My experience has been that people don't come forward with sexual harassment complaints unless there's something there. The problem is that "something" is sometimes a genuine misunderstanding or miscommunication. Occasionally it's someone overreacting to something innocent (those kinds of complaints get filtered out very quickly). And then sometimes it's outright sexual predation. I do not enjoy this part of my job. Fortunately I can turn most of it over to HR and let them do the actual investigation, but the final personnel actions always land on my desk.

Edit: To be clear, I'm talking about sexual harassment -- "hostile environment" and stuff like that -- not sexual assault. Fortunately, the latter doesn't generally involve me.

 

[Zellia]

I believe the accuser, but I also give the accused a chance to explain themselves.

 

[Kthulhu]

If it's only one person who's accusing them I am at least willing to suspect them. If it's more than one they are practically guilty in my mind, it's extremely unlikely they're both lying.

 

[Currygan]

facts first, always, but I do tend to believe the accuser's side, especially when claims, suspects and rumours have been piling up for decades

 

[XorpiZ]

Realistically, what proof is possible to obtain? What level of proof is acceptable?

Click to shrink...

There's no definitive answer to this. It all depends on circumstances. But I'll never take a random tweet as gospel. Not unless it's by someone I know.

 

[Rinse Bassfunk]

There's no definitive answer to this. It all depends on circumstances. But I'll never take a random tweet as gospel. Not unless it's by someone I know.

Click to shrink...

No one's asking you to, but in reality there won't be proof from most of these cases unless the accused straight up confesses.

 

[Famassu]

It depends on some factors. Some make me likelier to believe the accuser from the offset, some make me hesitant to believe them & even ignore them. Like, let's take the Kevin Spacey case. There's just nothing for the accuser to win in this case and he came forward publicly with a pretty clear story of what happened with no added drama or craziness. Add to this that there has been some rumor-mongering about Kevin Spacey for a long time and I don't really see any reason for much doubt. But it did take someone publicly coming out to make the accusation. I didn't believe just any random anonymous post on some Youtube video or news site's comments section.

For example in Neil Degrasse Tyson case I'm just shocked

Click to shrink...

What case is this?

 

[Thisman]

Usually an offender is a repeat offender so I do not jump the gun and start blaming until multiple folks start to come out. Always neutral until I hear ofmultiple victims

 

[XorpiZ]

No one's asking you to, but in reality there won't be proof from most of these cases unless the accused straight up confesses.

Click to shrink...

Which is why I also wrote "more info". That could be another one that backs up the claim, a witness or whatever.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Believing the accuser is the safest choice considering fake accusations are very rare.

Click to shrink...

The fact that false accusations are rare is pretty much in line with the entire point of the presumption of innocence and Blackstone's formulation. Which is that it doesn't matter if the likelihood of guilt is 80, 90, 95 or 99 percent, it's better for ten guilty people escape than for one innocent person to be sentenced wrongly.

 

[Powdered Egg]

"Whatever they say he did, he did that shit"

Accusations are true for me until disproven.

 

[TGR91]

When the number of allegations starts to grow my ability to maintain that the person is "innocent until proven guilty" starts to wane.

 

[Deleted member 8852]

I am skeptical at first, but that changes based on past infractions / accusations.

Like the Adam Sandler knee touching thing, that was complete nonsense.

 

[scourge_of_tirany]

In a society where an unfathomable amount more people have had their lives destroyed because they couldn't come forward or did come forward and weren't even believed I disagree with you.

Click to shrink...

you can disagree all you want,but he is right,a false acussation can destroy someone outside of the courts

 

[New Fang]

I approach this subject in the same exact same way I approach any subject. I'll believe something when I see enough evidence to convince me it's true.

Something I think gets lost on a lot of people these days is that you don't have to have an opinion on every little thing that occurs in the public space. Sometimes it's OK to just say "I don't know what really happened here".

 

[Fauxpaw]

This is the first time of me hearing he was accused of something, but I am not shocked like you. Neil always had a condescending tone in most of his talks. He acts arrogantly when handles topics such as religion and philosophy. Acts like he is better than everyone even though his background is pretty specific. Those are the characteristics of a psychopath.

I am not saying he did it, but it doesn't shock me.

Click to shrink...

You're the one that sounds condescending and arrogant based on this post.


In most situations, I will believe the accuser. This does not mean I'm going to go around demonizing and condemning the accused unless there's a pattern or evidence, but that also doesn't mean I'll keep my mouth shut and opinions to myself depending on my company. The unfortunate reality is that in most cases, we will never know the truth. And because of that, and because of the "what ifs", the questioning, the potential loss of friends, the potential further victimization by society, most victims will continue to remain silent. This feels like something that gets brushed under the rug during these discussions. The way things currently are set up in society is not in the victims favor; evidence will almost never be in the victim's favor. "Innocent until proven guilty" often does work in our actual justice system when it comes to sexual assault and rape. That's why only 6 out of 1000 rapists will see the inside of a cell. This keeps victims silent. It will probably keep me silent if something ever happens to me again. There is no easy answer to this. I'm not sure what to change as far as prosecution goes. But it's also why I'm not spouting "innocent until proven guilty" on an internet forum in the "court" of public opinion.

One thing I am getting tired of is the absolute glee many on this forum seem to have at the accusations that have been spilling forth. It often feels like the actual victims are forgotten in place of the excitement of outing another harasser. I get it, because a lot of these cases have been a long time coming, and people like to see justice, but I don't think it's appropriate.

 

[prag16]

I don't think this is too complicated. Take every accusation VERY seriously, but don't automatically believe either side. Doing that would create a very dangerous precedent.

Seems like for a lot of people, that type of approach is not acceptable. Which is kind of ridiculous.

 

[Persephone]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/on-sexual-harassment-threads-a-womans-perspective.1215/

For OP's (and everyone else's) consideration. I believe the accuser, always.

 

[DryCreek]

.

 

[Omegasquash]

Compassion for the survivor. The needs of the survivor/accuser come first. It takes a HELL of a lot of courage to speak up and speak out. Folks don't throw out false assault accusations (yes, there could be and probably have been exceptions to this rule).

That doesn't mean burning accused at the stake. It means letting due process take its course, wherever possible. You can pretty often get a good sense of how the accused views the accuser based on a response though.

Typically any kind of character statements by the accused towards the accuser tell me that they're being defensive. Calling them an "opportunist" or "mentally ill" doesn't sit well with me. I understand the need to defend oneself from false accusation, however sensitivity and compassion towards the accuser from the accused should come first.

Admittedly, this is a high expectation and it not a "rule" to which there are "exceptions". Spacey's response, for example, doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Cream]

The fact that false accusations are rare is pretty much in line with the entire point of the presumption of innocence and Blackstone's formulation. Which is that it doesn't matter if the likelihood of guilt is 80, 90, 95 or 99 percent, it's better for ten guilty people escape than for one innocent person to be sentenced wrongly.

Click to shrink...

A much more realistic way of saying this would be

"It's better for 1000 rapists of 1000 women to go free, than for 1 man falsely accused of rape to be sentenced wrongly"

And I would have to disagree.

I believe the accuser.

 

[PoppaBK]

I don't think this is too complicated. Take every accusation VERY seriously, but don't automatically believe either side. Doing that would create a very dangerous precedent.

Seems like for a lot of people, that type of approach is not acceptable. Which is kind of ridiculous.

Click to shrink...

I think basically you have to have a Schrödingers cat type approach. Believe the victim, while simultaneously assuming the accused is innocent until evidence is available. Which is a very difficult thing to do.

 

[clearacell]

The conclusion I ended up with in the old forum was "I fully support a thorough investigation of this accusation". If the accuser is right, they will get justice. If the accused is innocent, they would be rectified. Innocent until proven guilty means both not assuming the accuser lied or that the accused did it, but that there is a strong effort to find out what happened and for justice to be served.

Dont give me bullshit about percentages, these arent numbers, they are lives. Dont tell me your life means more than someone else's, because I will then wish it upon you to face the terror of being that lone person no one believes.

Kind of like how you wouldnt want to be the accuser no one believes, right?

Just fucken WAIT for things to come about...make sure what you do next, what you feel about it, has a reason behind it. The more that gets uncovered the stronger you can feel.

I mean, reading stories you just read on social media and fully believing them based upon no evidence, just that they fit your agenda...sound familiar? Knee jerk reactions to accusations just make you a liberal version of a Trump supporter from the last election. Dont be that. It wont even take that long of a wait, nowadays more evidence pours out within hours, just dont get into a habit of slapping a desk and screaming "they did it!".

Its not a contest of who was fastest to be right, it should always be that you need to make sure you ARE right.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

A much more realistic way of saying this would be

"It's better for 1000 rapists of 1000 women to go free, than for 1 man falsely accused of rape to be sentenced wrongly"

And I would have to disagree.

I believe the accuser.

Click to shrink...

That's pretty much the basis of English common law, and it makes sense based on the punishments that the justice system can mete and the problems within the justice system.

"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer."

I'm sure you'd love the presumption of guilt right up until the moment you're the 1/10, 1/100 or 1/1000 that's presumed guilty and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence. An innocent man being punished for something he didn't do undermines the entire system. It's the entire reason why we fight against things like the death penalty, because ending a man's life wrongly, even if it only happens rarely, is a massive, unfixable injustice.

The day that countries like the USA outlaw the death penalty, outlaw ridiculous sentencing, start taking prison reform seriously, and begins to eradicate racial biases in sentencing is the day that the principle will be less necessary.

But that day isn't now.

I think basically you have to have a Schrödingers cat type approach. Believe the victim, while simultaneously assuming the accused is innocent until evidence is available. Which is a very difficult thing to do.

Click to shrink...

Basically this, yeah.

 

[Cream]

That's pretty much the basis of English common law, and it makes sense based on the punishments that the justice system can offer and the problems within the justice system.

"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer."

I'm sure you'd love the presumption of guilt right up until the moment you're the 1/10, 1/100 or 1/1000 that's presumed guilty and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence. An innocent man being punished for something he didn't do undermines the entire system.

The day that countries like the USA outlaw the death penalty, outlaw ridiculous sentencing, start taking prison reform seriously, and begins to eradicate racial biases in sentencing is the day that the principle will be less necessary.

But that day isn't now.

Click to shrink...

Good thing I'm not the law. I say this as a black person that's not male.

Yes, it sucks that I'm forced to choose in situations like this, and those in power want it that way, but I have to side with women.

None of those things are going to happen any time soon. I have no choice but ti believe women.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Good thing I'm not the law. I say this as a black person that's not male.

Yes, it sucks that I'm forced to choose in situations like this, and those in power want it that way, but I have to side with women.

None of those things are going to happen any time soon. I have no choice but ti believe women.

Click to shrink...

You have a choice to do both. You can take a person's accusation seriously without presuming guilt.

It's all easy breezy believing accused to be guilty until we remember that we're in a fracticious racial situation in the USA and not remotely far away from returning to segregation era days of black men being tried and charged on completely trumped up charges. Situations for POC in the justice system are bad enough with the presumption of guilty, we don't need to add even more legitimacy to that approach.

And since none of those things are going to happen any time soon, that's exactly why the principle is so important.

 

[Cream]

You have a choice to do both. You can take a person's accusation seriously without presuming guilt.

And since none of those things are going to happen any time soon, that's exactly why the principle is so important.

Click to shrink...

But society has proven that it won't deal justice fairly or evenly. If the law isn't willing to call out the guilty and bring them to justice, which they largely aren't, then people like me have no choice but to shun and demonize them ourselves.

The principle isn't even done evenly in law anyway. So It's all bs.

 

[SeventhEvil]

Unless I personally know the accuser/accused I don't react at all, as I have most likely no reason to believe either.

Go to the police and let them do their job.

 

[Cream]

Unless I personally know the accuser/accused I don't react at all, as I have most likely no reason to believe either.

Go to the police and let them do their job.

Click to shrink...

The police rarely do their job though, so we're forced to take it into our own hands.

 

[Deleted member 4461]

I'm in between. Many of these accusations have turned out to be true, so I'm typically in that more of thought.

Then again, no one has been able to explain to me how the statistics on false reporting of sexual assault are gathered. How can you determine a claim's veracity without a trial?

And if you can, why aren't arrests made?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

But society has proven that it won't deal justice fairly or evenly. If the law isn't willing to call out the guilty and bring them to justice, which they largely aren't, then people like me have no choice but to shun and demonize them ourselves.

The principle isn't even done evenly in law anyway. So It's all bs.

Click to shrink...

If you're shunning and demonizing someone without significant evidence, then yes, that's a massive problem, as big of a problem as wrongful conviction in the court. Perhaps even a bigger problem.

Some of you people need to rewatch The Hunt for a reminder of how utterly destructive wrongful judgment in the court of public opinion can be.

Also, if the principle isn't applied evenly (and it's not), the right thing to do would be to advocate and fight for its evenhanded application. Not its destruction.

 

[Cecil]

Unless I personally know the accuser/accused I don't react at all, as I have most likely no reason to believe either.

Go to the police and let them do their job.

Click to shrink...

This is the start. When someone admits or is overwhelmed by evidence, you can go "fuck that guy", but I'm not jumping in with pitchforks and torches at the first opportunity myself.

If the police doesn't do their job? Let it it be an issue for coworkers,friends, etc. I still don't want to be part of the mob, sitting behind my computer in Sweden.

 

[Cream]

If you're shunning and demonizing someone without significant evidence, then yes, that's a massive problem, as big of a problem as wrongful conviction in the court. Perhaps even a bigger problem.

Some of you people need to rewatch The Hunt for a reminder of how utterly destructive wrongful judgment in the court of public opinion can be.

Click to shrink...

So how about how utterly destructive all the rapists and sexual assaults going free that far far far outnumbers the number of men getting falsely accused?

You think I don't know about the dangers of false accusation and public opinion? Like I said, I'm a black woman. I don't LIKE being forced to think this way. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

So how about how utterly destructive all the rapists and sexual assaults going free that far far far outnumbers the number of men getting falsely accused?

Click to shrink...

What about them? Fight for their conviction if there's evidence that should put them away. Fight for reform in the system if there's evidence that should have put them away.

I just don't know how you could look someone in the eye who was wrongfully accused and say to them "I'm okay with you suffering, and your life being completely destroyed, because the needs of the many outweigh your life." That sounds like a horrific world to live in.

 

[Shadowrun]

As a baseline, you should take accusations seriously, and do your due diligence when addressing them. If your immediate response is to either grab pitchforks or express skepticism, you dun goofed.

 

[Cream]

Fight for their conviction if there's evidence that should put them away. Fight for reform in the system if there's evidence that should have put them away.

Click to shrink...

I do that too. But it's not enough, and you know it.

That sounds like a horrific world to live in.

Click to shrink...

You're right. It's called the real world.

And I don't do it for everything. You think I don't know about the horrific tradition of white women falsely accusing black men of rape and being given the benefit of the doubt because they are white women and the accused is black? I'm constantly having to second guess myself and hold contradictory thoughts. I don't like it.

 

[Fauxpaw]

Unless I personally know the accuser/accused I don't react at all, as I have most likely no reason to believe either.

Go to the police and let them do their job.

Click to shrink...

I've pretty much already decided that if I get raped (again), I'm not going to go to the police unless I somehow have insurmountable evidence. Why? There is almost no point. Why do I want to get badgered and viciously questioned and asked to relive my rape over and over again for the tiniest, smallest chance of justice? Because it's good for society as a whole? To satisfy the misguided feelings of those who want or believe in justice, or think that women going to the police will magically change society's treatment of victims? Naw, I don't believe that.

I'm in between. Many of these accusations have turned out to be true, so I'm typically in that more of thought.

Then again, no one has been able to explain to me how the statistics on false reporting of sexual assault are gathered. How can you determine a claim's veracity without a trial?

And if you can, why aren't arrests made?

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure how the data is gathered, but in a trial where the accused is the defendant, that trial is only used to decided "not guilty", not "innocent". The defendant does have the opportunity to counter-sue, but it can be equally as difficult to prove that the accuser purposefully lied.

 

[The Futurist]

All accusations should be taken seriously, but far too many people believe accusers far too easily.

Knee jerk reactions and the mob mentality of the internet never help anyone.

People's perceptions of events also change over time.

There are many people that would never be accused of anything like this, but what if an event at a certain point in time was fine, but later their feelings towards that person changed. That event in their mind which was fine at the time immediately turns into something it wasn't.

 

[RdN]

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[jeanbodin]

If only we had some sort of old institution where one may argue and later decide which party was right...

 

[Deleted member 4461]

I'm not sure how the data is gathered, but in a trial where the accused is the defendant, that trial is only used to decided "not guilty", not "innocent". The defendant does have the opportunity to counter-sue, but it can be equally as difficult to prove that the accuser purposefully lied.

Click to shrink...

First, I'm sorry about what happened to you. I don't want any of my comments to be misconstrued as disbelief, nor do I want to deepen any trauma.

Regarding the quoted portion - while true, this still doesn't explain how data for factual vs falsified claims exists. If the way you determine veracity is typically a court case (even if not necessarily determining innocence), and I doubt there were confessions on the part of most of these perpetrators, how can we say with confidence that only X% of perpetrators never get arrested, or only X% of assault claims are false?