Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
We can also all recognize that yes, what the victim is currently going through is indeed awful, without having to wax poetic about the rights of the accused, guilty until proven innocent, or some lame comparison to Trumpism. To reiterate, we know what happened, and we know how the victim feels about it. This isn’t an instance where this whole thing may have been made up, people are reacting to what happened.
People are allowed to have feelings and make moral judgements about things. Nobody here is on the jury.
|
How is the comparison lame? Presuming guilt and desiring a no trial punishment is Exactly what Trump is doing with deportations in the states.
That is what was being suggested. Sure, you can have whatever moral opinion you want, but that doesn't make it justified, or right. It's much, much more lame to desire/seek punishment based on unproven accusations.
The extreme example here is convicting a muderer to death only to find out later they were innocent. Well, we have already opinioned these guys to cultural and career death. The weight of this trial has also already probably irreperably altered their lives. So I pose the opposite question, what if everything the two defense lawyers have said is the objective truth? What if she wasn't that drunk, what if she did request more guys enter the room, what if she encouraged them? What if her crying and later recanting was a snowball effect from regret of cheating on her boyfriend and shame?
These would be awful accusations to levy against her in reverse, and would need to be proven.