(no subject)

[naath]

Dammit, distracted by maths yesterday.

Maths is better than the news, on which Lord McAlpine was claiming that being accused of being a rapist is the WORST THING EVAR; apparently missing the obviously juxtaposition with BEING RAPED which is almost certainly much much worse, especially if you are 11.

OK, he didn't do it (wasn't even in the location of the crime), yes, I get that. And yes - the BBC and other reputable news outlets ought to have done some basic fact-checking beyond simply taking an accusers' word at face value; but in general I would much prefer it if people were quicker to believe people who say "I was raped" than slower. Not quicker to the point of throwing people in prison, courts must obviously look in detail at the evidence, but to the point of not calling the victim a liar and a slut.

Comments

[hatter.livejournal.com]

The mob rule that brought his name out to begin with can all too often lead to pitchfork waving that either directly leads to severe outcomes before justice can prevail, and that all happens in a very public arena where retractions and apologies often happen much later, much more quietly. I won't claim one is worse than the other for any particular individual but a rape victim is more often the one who can mend their own life through their own actions, those falsely accused have to fix everyone else's minds, people they knew well, people they may know in future and people they may never even have direct contact with because others reject you for opportunities that you may otherwise have been offered.


the hatter

[pavanne.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. A great many more people will learn of 'accused of rape' than are likely to learn of 'oh, and then completely cleared'.

Either is likely to be horrible, obviously, and thank goodness I have no experience of either, but if I had to choose I probably would pick the physical trauma.