One of the many disheartening things about the media/social media/real life response to recent #metoo stuff is quite how many people think that anything short of conviction of an alleged sex offender means alleged victims lied. Wee crime corr thread. 1/
2/ I know internet partisans like their world to be oh-so-simple and black and white, goodies and baddies. But I guess most of us know the real world is not like that? There can be a lot of gray out there.
3/ There is a whole range of behaviours which fall under sexual misconduct or offending. Sometimes these fall below a test under which they might be suitable for criminal court proceedings. That does not mean either alleged victims - or perpetrators - have "lied".
4. Sometimes a police investigation ends with no action. This does not mean victims lied. It means the police did not find enough evidence to proceed.
5. Sometimes prosecutors decide not to proceed with a case. This does not mean victims lied. This means the prosecutors did not think that there was enough evidence or that a prosecution was in the public interest.
6. Sometimes sheriffs or juries decide that an individual accused of a sex crime was not guilty. This does not mean alleged victims lied. It means the sheriff or jury thought evidence did not meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
7. And of course none of these outcomes short of conviction mean or suggest the accused person "did it but we couldn't prove it". The accused person is innocent unless convicted.
8. Sometimes people are suspected of making false accusations. But the burden of proof on their being 'liars" is also beyond reasonable doubt. When are accusers 'liars"? When they have been convicted of perjury of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
