- Awards
- 9
That first sentence just keeps rattling around in my brain and I can't get rid of it.
"A failure to charge or convict a crime does not equate to innocence."
What does it mean then?
What happens when a legal process has played out on multiple fronts and found there is insufficient evidence to either record a conviction or even see formal charges pressed? What then becomes of the concept of innocence? When unproven allegations have to be taken as gospel? In her own words, she believes someone becomes "not only ignorant" but "evil" for wanting a standard of evidence to be met before forming an definitive opinion.
A standard of evidence is supposed to be the foundations on how we build what is the best of ourselves. It is literally the scientific process of how knowledge becomes accepted. I don't want to get political, but I strongly believe a lot of the issues we're seeing in modern society is because information which is unproven can so quickly be spread as factual. Do we all agree things like the theory dinosaurs didn't exist or flat-earth theory is insane? Should we take that as fact too without it meeting the standard of evidence?
She is correct that many, many people (especially men) have been guilty of crimes they were not charged with or convicted of. But how much power should a mere allegation, with quite literally zero proof, hold? And should people really be losing their careers based on unsubstantiated claims?
Take Ragnar, for instance, calling Watson a rapist. He isn't even accused of rape but the mere allegations have etched Watson's name forever as a rapist. Someone who could get away with it even if he was caught doing it. Anyone who disagrees is evil and just hates women.
I want to make clear I am not anti cancel culture. With as many options as we have in this day and age, of course we're going to prioritise that which better reflects our views and condemn that which does not. We're on a giant rock spinning in infinite space and our existence is both fleeting and largely inconsequential. We try to impact anything we can, and we rightfully should. But this isn't cancel culture. It's a growing belief an individual should be prosecuted for crimes they're accused of committing - even if those crimes are unproven.
I said at the time of the trade I wanted to wait on it because black men have historically been accused of being sexual predators based on no evidence. Cannabis prohibition was assisted in the United States by the claim it made black men sexual savages with a thirst for white women - and that was stated by the US government. Segregation was often said to be a positive to control the uncontrollable sexual urges of the black man. The lynching of black men often came with flimsy allegations of sexual impropriety. And I do believe history will one day look back on how often black athletes were accused of being sexually inappropriate with just as much contempt. We've already seen too many black men lose everything on false allegations of sexual assault or misconduct. See Brian Banks.
I am not saying these allegations are racially motivated. I am saying it isn't new to espouse the beliefs that black men should be treated as criminals based on sexual allegations which have no proof of ever occurring. In fact, one of the accusing women even directly mentioned his ethnicity in her open letter to him - in the context of her not being racist, but still, she somehow just needed to mention race.
I want to live in a world where proof reigns. Where we can all be called out for a lack of it. Because ultimately, the greatest achievements in our world have met a decent standard of proof. The worst of humanity fucking lacked it. It's Hitler's modern antisemitism, Jim Crow lynching and bad science in general.
If wanting evidence makes me evil, then I guess I am evil. But I would argue her insistence evidence is not needed in our society is a fucking despicable attitude to have.
Last edited:
