Quote:
Originally Posted by Noid
As I said earlier, it costs nothing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and it doesn't immediately mean you throw the accused into jail and throw away the key. That's why investigations into these things happen. I just don't see any benefit to assuming someone is lying about sexual assault. No one assumes that about any other crime. If someone says "my stereo got stolen," people say "fuck, that sucks" and wonder how they got warped back in time to the 1990's
|
Wait... of course people do that about any other crime. If someone is a clear pathological liar, a nutjob and an overall unreliable person and they say "this other person robbed me, threatened to kill me, attacked me, etc." and the other person is like "... That didn't happen", the benefit of the doubt would go to the one who isn't a pathological liar. In EVERY crime. It's not rape-specific.
People do that about ANY crime, rape included. People who doubt her because she's a clear bullshitter are not the ones making a special exception because it's rape. People saying "she's probably not lying because it's rape" are OBVIOUSLY the ones making a special exception because it's rape.