A common problem I've noticed is that because so many victims don't come forward and false claims don't happen much many people have developed an aversion to discussing or even accepting the possibility of false claims, particularly in feminist circles.
My problem is not with discussing the possibility of false rape allegations but with vastly overstating their prevalence. This constant focus on false allegations makes it seem like they are far more common than they are, which is very damaging to genuine victims who are hesitant to come forward because they fear they will not be believed. And if feminists in particular have a problem with this, it is because there has been an agenda for a long time to portray women who speak out about rape as liars, attention seekers or partly responsible for what happened to them.
I think what I'm seeing is people trying to compensate for victims not being believed because it's happened so many times but it's been taken a step too far, the accused is assumed guilty before they've stepped foot in a court room and that's just as dangerous and wrong as assuming the accuser is a liar with nothing to back it up.
Are you sure about that, given that it's notoriously difficult to convict someone of rape and most reported rapes never even make it to court? The "innocent until
proven guilty" just doesn't fly here because, as you said yourself, in many cases it's impossible to prove rape.
Every and any person who makes a claim of rape or other kind of sexual abuse deserves to be taken seriously and there should be thorough investigation into the matter. My position of claims I hear about is that I don't know what the truth is yet and I want as much evidence as I can get before deciding what I think about it. Realistically, much of the time we won't get enough evidence either way and in that case my opinion on it will be that I don't know what happened. I would not treat the accuser as though they are a liar but I also would not treat the accused as though they are guilty. Although that position is fair from a perspective of logic and evidence, it's often met with hostility by victims advocates. Going too far either way on either side of the issue is undesirable and the proof of that is all the hurt rape victims and also all the falsely accused victims who have both had their lives severely impacted by opinions and actions of those taking things too far one way or the other. A genuine rape victim's life can be made hell by people saying they're a liar and Michael's life was made hell by people who assumed he was guilty.
This sounds great in theory but imagine if your best friend, whom you know to be an honest decent person, confides in you and tells you she was raped by her neighbour a year ago. You confront the neighbour and he denies the allegations vociferously. It's her word against his. Would you still believe and comfort your friend or would you say to her what you wrote here, that you just can't be sure she's speaking the truth so she should go to the police and hope her case makes it to court and a jury finds the neighbour guilty, otherwise you can't support her since you don't want to jump to conclusions?
See, I agree with you on principle that the accused deserve a fair hearing and we should not rush to judge them. On the other hand, in the case of rape it's clear that an otherwise admirable position of "innocent until proven guilty" just does not hold and can even be immoral (as I would argue is the case in the scenario above where you would not be there for your friend just because she is not able to prove in a court of law that she was raped). I would hope that you would trust your friend on her word either way and not demand cold hard proof lest you remain undecided. And if your friend makes the courageous decision to go to the police and her story gets picked up by the local media, I assume you would be hurt by suggestions of random strangers that your friend may be making this all up for selfish reasons and we should offer our sympathies to the alleged rapist for possibly being a victim of false allegations.
Given the data we have on the rare instances of false rape allegations, I do not think "guilty before proven innocent" is a radical or undesirable position -
provided there are no clear motives or evidence to suggest the allegations are false. In the case of celebrities or wealthy people there is a possible ulterior motive, such as fame or money, which could lead to false allegations so I would withhold my judgment there. If there is evidence to suggest the accuser is not reliable or trustworthy, I would also withhold judgment. But if it's a dear friend accusing her non-wealthy, non-famous neighbour, then no, I'm not going to pressure my friend into going to court before I would offer her my unconditional support.
Try conversing with victim's advocates or others who are passionate about rape victims and you'll have a very difficult time trying to speak with them about Michael. You'll be accused of victims blaming even when that's not what you did and they'll say people like you are the reason victims don't come forward. It doesn't matter that we have decent evidence and reason not to believe the claims against him, many of them simply do not want to hear it.
I understand that but I also think this is why Michael Jackson fans have a particular blind spot when it comes to this because they relate all discussions about false rape accusations back to him, even though his case is in no way representative of rape allegations in general. I have never seen a more obvious example of shady accusers with clear ulteriour motives, impossible allegations that are easy to disprove and a proud bias against the accused on the part of LE, the media and the public at every turn. That said, if you framed your argument the same way you did here I can understand why rape victim advocates would take umbrage.
Finding a middle ground with this whole subject can be extremely difficult. Personally, I think that when an accusation of this nature is reported and taken to trial, the public shouldn't be made aware of it until a verdict has been given, especially in high profile cases. That way, in the case of genuine victims, they don't have to put up with months of hearing about people's opinions or speculation from talking heads in the media and for the falsely accused, they won't have to put up with months of the same with media that is quick to decide their guilt. Without all the opinions flying around during the course of an investigation or trial I think that could make it easier for victims to come forward knowing they won't have to put up with as much from the public.
This is another argument that sounds reasonable at first glance but that also has its problems. For example, what about victims who are afraid to come forward because they fear they will not be believed or who try to minimise what happened to them because they think it was an isolated incident. Do they not have a right to know that there are other potential victims out there who have found the courage to report this crime to police? Do they not have a right to build a stronger case together rather than risk having one accuser going to court and losing because her individual claim did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt?