Submitted by NAB in Philosophy

The general conciseness here seems to be believe the victims over the accused even when evidence is lacking, but why? I mean imagine if someone makes an accusation against you, even if it is not rape, would you want courts and the public to take their side even if they have no evidence? What brings this to mind is I recently had a friend who was falsly accused of shoplifting, and in this case the supposed victim was "Walmart", and he was charged due to the "victims" side being taken.

To me it seems that believing the victim unconditionally is really quite a double edged sword that can just as easily work against you as it can for you, and it frankly seems very dangerous to fall into the side of always believing the victim or always believing the accused. I really do feel that we need to hold true to the ideals of innocent until proven guilty if we want to be as fair and just as possible.

−3

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

How can we be expected to engage with a strawman?

3