Thread by @GeoffLemonSport

It's staggering that rugby league people have decided it's time to talk *about whether* players accused of violent crimes should be stood down.

That's not a question. That should have been the standard for a century.

No one under criminal investigation can credibly hold a position of responsibility. They can't credibly act as representatives of any kind, and they shouldn't be given admiration or the chance to embellish celebrity.

Maybe the most misunderstood civil construct along with free speech is "innocent until proven guilty". Lots of people are invoking it. But it only means a court can't punish without a conviction. It doesn't mean those in broader society can't draw their own conclusions.

A court can only fail to find someone guilty. It can't find them innocent. And the burden of proof for sexual assault is incredibly high. Avoiding conviction doesn't mean they're morally exonerated.

By the numbers, if someone is accused of assault they're probably guilty. There's this obsession with false accusations, but even high estimates put fake reports at maybe 5%. Which doesn't equal 5% of cases.

Again, conservative estimates are that 1 in 3 assaults are reported. But that means the tally isn't 5 false in 100, it's 5 in 300. So it's 1.7% at the upper estimate. The real number is probably much lower.

Which makes it bizarre that so many people impulsively believe the accused. There is almost never a benefit to the accuser in making up a charge. There is almost always a benefit to the accused in denying it.

Because for those 98% of attacks, at best one third are reported. A fraction of those go to trial, and a fraction of those lead to convictions.

It's very hard to prove these cases to a high enough standard for conviction. And of course a high standard has to be required. But if you're, say, a rich athlete with a rich club backing you, you can hire very effective lawyers with lots of tactics to discredit a witness.

I don't know if it's a trend, but there seem to be lots of cases now where the plaintiff has to prove not just that they didn't consent, but that the defendant *knew* they didn't consent. This is batshit insane.

We need criminal justice reform on exactly this. Anyone in a sexual situation should be responsible for positively establishing consent. Convenient ignorance can't be an excuse anymore.

And if someone is not guilty in court, so be it. But it's up to people outside court to look at the statistical likelihood of guilt, and the facts of the case, and assess the situation for themselves.

Court is court. Life is life. And it's a cop-out to use one to hide from uncomfortable decisions in the other.