this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
787 points (93.0% liked)
Political Memes
9891 readers
1627 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let's make this thought experiment. Is someone raped ALL the people beside the judge. But did this all 1-by-1 without witnesses. And they all coming forward. Should the judge sentence him on the "testimony alone"?
It really feels like saying "no" would mean that the system is not working in a big way. Saying "yes" on other means that there is a number of people cumming forward that should be considered a credible evidence., right?
But I'm not arguing "innocent until" part. I'm arguing what constitute "proven guilty". Is there a number of testimonies that should be counted as proof?
You dogged the theoretical question. Is testimony of 100% people enough? Does at ANY point testimonies become more than "accusation alone?
(btw it's not "until proven guilty" it's "until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt".)
Then all you'd need is collusion between a sufficient number of people to get someone you don't like convicted of any crime.
Well, isn't this always true to the degree?
It's a question that is easy to pose and incredibly difficult to solve (if not actually impossible to solve). Which is why the world's collective judicial systems are struggling with it and have been struggling with it since the invention of judicial systems.
Ideally, courts should be able to convict every single guilty person while letting every single innocent person walk free. We also want all victims compensated fairly for the wrong that had been done unto them, while we want all scammers to get nothing.
The problem here is that we don't know everything and that circumstances differ, so that a solid binary yes-or-no decision is hard to make.
More evidence (and victim testimonies are evidence) helps for sure, but then again context needs to be taken into consideration.
If everyone says he did it, that's strong evidence. On the other hand there have been more than enough victims of wrongful mob "justice" as well (look up for example Drachenlord if you want a recent and really shocking one).
And of course, if money's on the table and it's a very famous person, the chances of someone just jumping on the bandwagon to score some easy money are not zero either.
On the other side, a large majority of legitimate rape cases have nothing but the testimony of a single victim.
All in all it would be disingenuous to put up a single number (even if this is 99%) of victim testimonies that should be enough for an automatic conviction or acquittal. And it's also unrealistic to expect a flawless conviction/acquittal record.
It's always a balance between convicting innocent people and acquitting dangerous criminals. And the balance needs to be somewhere and it's always wrong for the individuals who didn't get justice.