Meadowchik Posted April 21, 2016 Author Posted April 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Yirgacheffe said: And even then you are still left with a problem, just because the state can't prove it was rape, it does not mean that it wasn't rape from the victims POV, or consensual from the other view. True, kinda what I said in another post a few comments up. Do you agree that we then must be able to respond to a victim's needs regardless?
thesometimesaint Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 8 hours ago, Meadowchik said: True, kinda what I said in another post a few comments up. Do you agree that we then must be able to respond to a victim's needs regardless? How best to do that is always the question. Do we validate the feelings or the experience? Do we just counsel them to accept the situation and move on? IE; Yes; this horrible thing happened to you. Now what are you going to do with rest of your life? Or do we counsel them to remain in a victim mentality?
cynth Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 Yes, when a person says they were a victim of a crime, we must always consider that they were not. For example, suppose Scott Lloyd posted here that his wallet was stolen. We can be empathetic, but it is vitally important that we then discuss whether he is trustworthy, whether he has good character, whether he has a tendency to lie. Because surely his accusation of wallet-stealing will have a lifelong impact on the person that he accuses. What if they simply held his wallet, and took bills out, but honestly did not intend for Scott to think the bills were stolen? Scott will then have destroyed the thief's life, simply because he reported the thief for being a thief. It is imperative on us that we determine whether Scott's accusation is real, and whether Scott's perception that he did not give permission for his bills to be stolen really implies his bills were taken without his permission. For example, suppose Scott broke the honor code by taking out his wallet in a liquor store? Surely it is incumbent upon us to make sure Scott knows it was his fault his wallet was out; how could he then object when his bills are stolen if he was at the time in violation of an honor code rule? We must vigilantly apply this policy to all accusations of crimes, because surely there are so many, many crimes where the 'alleged' victim really needs to have their character examined, in great detail, because false accusations are so very, very rampant. Don't use another poster like this again. 1
Meadowchik Posted April 22, 2016 Author Posted April 22, 2016 5 hours ago, cynth said: Yes, when a person says they were a victim of a crime, we must always consider that they were not. For example, suppose Scott Lloyd posted here that his wallet was stolen. We can be empathetic, but it is vitally important that we then discuss whether he is trustworthy, whether he has good character, whether he has a tendency to lie. Because surely his accusation of wallet-stealing will have a lifelong impact on the person that he accuses. What if they simply held his wallet, and took bills out, but honestly did not intend for Scott to think the bills were stolen? Scott will then have destroyed the thief's life, simply because he reported the thief for being a thief. It is imperative on us that we determine whether Scott's accusation is real, and whether Scott's perception that he did not give permission for his bills to be stolen really implies his bills were taken without his permission. For example, suppose Scott broke the honor code by taking out his wallet in a liquor store? Surely it is incumbent upon us to make sure Scott knows it was his fault his wallet was out; how could he then object when his bills are stolen if he was at the time in violation of an honor code rule? We must vigilantly apply this policy to all accusations of crimes, because surely there are so many, many crimes where the 'alleged' victim really needs to have their character examined, in great detail, because false accusations are so very, very rampant. Some protocol for due process must exist for the simple fact that we are all children of God. Although you cannot know what I perceive and I cannot know what you perceive, we can both know that our individual, personal perceptions and experiences exist and mine are as real to me as yours are to you. Thus, when we both come to a disagreement, there must be some good way to respond and seek resolution. Due process for criminal accusations is an extension of that: assume innocence before guilt, collect evidence, weigh it, let it be judged, and enforce laws and rules when they've been broken, because each soul is of great worth.
Meadowchik Posted April 22, 2016 Author Posted April 22, 2016 15 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: How best to do that is always the question. Do we validate the feelings or the experience? Do we just counsel them to accept the situation and move on? IE; Yes; this horrible thing happened to you. Now what are you going to do with rest of your life? Or do we counsel them to remain in a victim mentality? We help as much as we can.
Russell C McGregor Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 10 hours ago, cynth said: Yes, when a person says they were a victim of a crime, we must always consider that they were not. For example, suppose Scott Lloyd posted here that his wallet was stolen. We can be empathetic, but it is vitally important that we then discuss whether he is trustworthy, whether he has good character, whether he has a tendency to lie. Because surely his accusation of wallet-stealing will have a lifelong impact on the person that he accuses. What if they simply held his wallet, and took bills out, but honestly did not intend for Scott to think the bills were stolen? Scott will then have destroyed the thief's life, simply because he reported the thief for being a thief. It is imperative on us that we determine whether Scott's accusation is real, and whether Scott's perception that he did not give permission for his bills to be stolen really implies his bills were taken without his permission. For example, suppose Scott broke the honor code by taking out his wallet in a liquor store? Surely it is incumbent upon us to make sure Scott knows it was his fault his wallet was out; how could he then object when his bills are stolen if he was at the time in violation of an honor code rule? We must vigilantly apply this policy to all accusations of crimes, because surely there are so many, many crimes where the 'alleged' victim really needs to have their character examined, in great detail, because false accusations are so very, very rampant. That's a rather elaborate straw man. Especially since the bolded portion is parallel to no argument that has been put forward here.
Yirgacheffe Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 6 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Some protocol for due process must exist for the simple fact that we are all children of God. Although you cannot know what I perceive and I cannot know what you perceive, we can both know that our individual, personal perceptions and experiences exist and mine are as real to me as yours are to you. Thus, when we both come to a disagreement, there must be some good way to respond and seek resolution. Due process for criminal accusations is an extension of that: assume innocence before guilt, collect evidence, weigh it, let it be judged, and enforce laws and rules when they've been broken, because each soul is of great worth. There is a difference between assuming the innocence of the accused and assuming the alleged victim is guilty of something.
Meadowchik Posted April 22, 2016 Author Posted April 22, 2016 6 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: There is a difference between assuming the innocence of the accused and assuming the alleged victim is guilty of something. They are two different things so of course there is a difference. If you read all the posts here, you'll see that many possiblities are discussed. But specifically, IF the accused is innocent, there is a reasonable probability that the accuser is guilty of something. But as I also pointed out, the accuser could be honestly sincere and the accused could honestly think consent was given, among many other possibilities. Simply point, it is a very heavy burden for those who are responsible for figuring it out.
Recommended Posts