I know it’s incredibly difficult, but if you are ever sexually assaulted, it’s crucial to report it as soon as possible.
Time erodes facts, witnesses, memory, and only hurts a victim’s chance to seek justice. Prosecuting a sexual predator early also ensures that no one else can be victimized.
100% this. I wish I had… I’m only confronting it psychologically now, 20 years later, and I have to face the fact there’s no chance of getting justice.
I don’t know if it helps or not for me to point this out (I hope it’s something that gives you some solace), but depending on the circumstances it’s also very difficult to go through an investigation and trial. Maybe things are better now, but 20 or 30 years back it was an ordeal for the victim. The “what were you wearing?” mentality was very prevalent within the male-dominated judiciary and they made it so hard on the victims that they often felt like they were on trial - and in many cases they still didn’t get justice either, despite their personal lives being dissected in front of a room full of strangers, some of whom were intent on falsely portraying them as promiscuous. After seeing this happen to a friend, I lost faith in the system to deliver justice. I don’t have a solution, but an adversarial system just doesn’t seem ideal for this kind of prosecution.
Good, death is an escape from punishment. If you want someone to suffer for their crimes, keep them alive and miserable in jail. The only hell is the one we live in now.
In general I agree, but the existence of the death penalty at all is not rehab or restitution, but to cause suffering. I don’t believe in eye for an eye, but if the goal is punishment, death is only an escape from punishment, whereas keeping them alive and in jail for as long as possible is to me way more of a punishment.
Hard to tell what actually happened. Looks like he/she (he?) said thing. Why are some of these charges being brought decades later. If incident happened, the evidence can only be gathered right after, otherwise, it will be just that he/she said, which is not enough for a criminal conviction.
Why are some of these charges being brought decades later.
Because accusing a likeable and famous actor while you’re a nobody, will either be ignored or lead to thousands of hateful messages in your inbox every day, unless enough others came forth first.
Well, then the entire case is just an accusation without much evidence besides "trust me bro" and outside of Weinstein who was notorious, it is very unlikely to result in conviction.
Criminal law requires evidence, otherwise it would be abused by people to get rid of people they don't like or for profit.
This is actually the truth. I am a CSA survivor, and I didn’t report and now I wish so bad I did.
If anyone reading this has recently been through it, report it now! Don’t wait 20 years like me to even confront it and then never have a chance at closure.
Why are some of these charges brought decades later?
If the case isn’t iron clad you’ll have to defend against libel and it gets ugly fast. See for example the case of Evan Rachel Wood or Amber Heard, who had to not only defend herself once, but twice losing once and having her reputation utterly ruined because the one time she lost got so much more media attention.
See also this interview from 2005! Thats 17 years before Weinstein was finally found guilty. www.tmz.com/watch/0-2mpyk0xk/
I think Heard is an excellent example because Depp lost the UK trial, but won the US one which got so much more attention. Plus despite the claim Depp’s side put forth that “the abuse was a hoax” being found libelous, as in the jury decided it wasn’t a hoax, this didn’t get any attention and Heard is made out to be the sole villain in the story and having made it all up to hurt Johnny Depp.
This will make victims think thrice before even speaking up against (much less sue) celebrities as they risk being vilified if the case isn’t ironclad.
A case like this should be ironclad, though. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal charges. I wouldn't want people to be convicted of life-ruining crimes based on non-ironclad cases.
I’m saying the evidence doesn’t just have to be “ironclad” enough for a guilty verdict, it has to be so overwhelming that the outcome of the trial can be reasonably certain before a case is made. Why would I argue for the standard for evidence in a trial to be lessened? That doesn’t make sense.
Claiming Heard is victim here is not fair to actual victims but that's just an opinion.
Also, she is celebrity herself, I highly doubt she was scared to sue.
Most people did not believe her for various reasons. Since she decided to take the entire drama into court of public opinion, people are entitled to make their own judgement, which they did, just not in the way she expected or wanted.
…it’s from a odd technicality where on ol’ blighty, a male can’t be “raped” because of how the laws are written. Call it a peculiarity of their system or sexism, but it results in oddly sounding charges like what you see reported at least.
Comrad! Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “South Korean POWs abandoned for decades in North Korea” (Similairity: ~54%).
BEEP BOOP this action was performed semi-automatically by a bot (:
I very distinctly recall the geography teacher asking the class clown to pronounce it when we were studying it, it went as expected, and she corrected him. She told us it was pronounced n-eye-jer, but it’s also been 30 years.
bbc.co.uk
Active