MeToo moral dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristMyLife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChristMyLife

Guest
Here’s a bit of a moral dilemma.

Say you’ve got two people, one guilty of rape and one innocent.

Would it be better for the rapist to be convicted and sent to prison if it meant the innocent person was also convicted although falsely accused?

Or would it be better for the innocent person to not have any charges brought up against them, but that also means the guilty person gets away with no charges?

To recapitulate: is it preferable for the innocent to suffer punishment together with the guilty? Or is it preferable for both the innocent and the guilty to go free of punishment?

This has to do with MeToo because it has implications for that movement.

If option 1 is preferable, then it is preferable to side with accusers at the risk of innocent men being condemned.

If option 2 is preferable, then it is better to side with those accused who maintain their innocence, even if they are proven guilty by our legal system.
 
Last edited:
I don’t really get this fascination with false, wide ranging sex abuse accusations. Abusers are rarely brought to account vs the number of people who are afraid to report for one reason or another. This is a bit of a false narrative, let’s call it the #CENTERMETOONOTTHEVICTIM movement.
 
Last edited:
It preferable for both the innocent and the guilty to go free of punishment.

That is is why Founding Fathers of the United States set up the concept of Innocent until Proven Guilty.

For example: there are many situations where it’s possible someone who we are 99% or even 100% certain they are guilty of a crime goes free because the law wasn’t followed and we only learn of their guilt though illegal means.

In such instances, the person will be found innocent because we MUST assume innocence until proven guilty. We cannot break the law to entrap a criminal, etc.

So yes: it was be FAR better for the rapist to go free than to wrongly arrest the innocent one.

God bless
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
That is is why Founding Fathers of the United States set up the concept of Innocent until Proven Guilty.
Click to expand...
That concept is supposed to be implemented during court proceedings. Otherwise nobody could ever be investigated for anything.
phil19034 said:
It preferable for both the innocent and the guilty to go free of punishment.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that this is a false dichotomy that we shouldn’t play into. It’s not an “either or” situation in the real world.
 
Last edited:
TheAmazingGrace said:
40.png
phil19034:
That is is why Founding Fathers of the United States set up the concept of Innocent until Proven Guilty.
Click to expand...
That concept is supposed to be implemented during court proceedings. Otherwise nobody could ever be investigated for anything.
Click to expand...
That’s a flawed argument. People are investigated when a charge is brought against them. Innocent until Proven Guilty does NOT mean that charges cannot be investigated.
 
Last edited:
TheAmazingGrace said:
40.png
phil19034:
It preferable for both the innocent and the guilty to go free of punishment.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that this is a false dichotomy that we shouldn’t play into. It’s not an “either or” situation in the real world.
Click to expand...
I disagree. In countries where people are guilty until proven innocent, it is not unheard of for innocent bystanders to go to jail in order to punish the real criminal.
 
phil19034 said:
People are investigated when a charge is brought against them.
Click to expand...
Not all investigations result in legal proceedings. Companies investigate complaints of misconduct by prospective and current employees all the time without ever bringing them to court.
 
phil19034 said:
I disagree. In countries where people are guilty until proven innocent, it is not unheard of for innocent bystanders to go to jail in order to punish the real criminal.
Click to expand...
Not sure what this has to do with the Me Too movement.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
40.png
phil19034:
People are investigated when a charge is brought against them.
Click to expand...
Not all investigations result in legal proceedings. Companies investigate complaints of misconduct by prospective and current employees all the time without ever bringing them to court.
Click to expand...
We are talking apples and oranges here my friend…

The discussion is about rapists going to jail. We are not talking about companies investigating HR complaints.
 
There are real victims out there and only the legal system can help them. If that doesn’t work they are free to talk among themselves. After all, the victims of sexual abuse need an outlet, although some may choose not to talk about what happened to them.

The problem with MeToo appears to be an imagined distrust of all men and an automatic trust for all women who have been abused. I hope MeToo is not a rebranding of the 1970s men are “male chauvenist pigs.” Or, women, the eternal victims class. Men, the eternal enemies class.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
40.png
phil19034:
I disagree. In countries where people are guilty until proven innocent, it is not unheard of for innocent bystanders to go to jail in order to punish the real criminal.
Click to expand...
Not sure what this has to do with the Me Too movement.
Click to expand...
I NEVER brought the Me Too movement into this. I simply answered the OP’s question. My answer is agnostic to Me Too.

I find it be morally wrong to imprison an innocent person in order to insure a criminal goes to jail.

I would rather see 1000 criminals go free due to lack of compelling evidence than 1 innocent person wrongfully go to jail.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
40.png
phil19034:
The discussion is about rapists going to jail.
Click to expand...
It’s about a false dichotomy. Condemning innocent parties is not a prerequisite for punishing sexual predators.
Click to expand...
Yes, one can argue that it is a false dichotomy in the United States. However, it is NOT a false dichotomy world wide.
 
ChristMyLife said:
Would it be better for the rapist to be convicted and sent to prison if it meant the innocent person was also convicted although falsely accused?

Or would it be better for the innocent person to not have any charges brought up against them, but that also means the guilty person gets away with no charges?

To recapitulate: is it preferable for the innocent to suffer punishment together with the guilty? Or is it preferable for both the innocent and the guilty to go free of punishment?

This has to do with MeToo because it has implications for that movement.

If option 1 is preferable, then it is preferable to side with accusers at the risk of innocent men being condemned.

If option 2 is preferable, then it is better to side with those accused who maintain their innocence, even if they are proven guilty by our legal system.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how any of the bolded happens on a case by case basis. The whole premise of what you are asking doesn’t make any sense to me.
 
edwest said:
The problem with MeToo appears to be an imagined distrust of all men and an automatic trust for all women who have been abused.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that you’ve made #metoo about women vs mn when when it is about abuse, including harassment and violent assault. Men and boys can say “me too” but you are de facto excluding them. Who’s playing victim now?
 
The way I’ve seen it presented, it’s always about women carrying signs “Don’t you trust us?” The internet is the wrong place to solve this. That is what law enforcement is for. I’m seeing the same thing in my local newspaper. Only women can be trusted and without using the word liars, men are liars because we can only trust women. Men, being the ones with power, are using it to abuse and assault women.
 
This has nothing to do with #metoo the OP is attempting to use a simpleton rhetorical device to argue condemnation vs not ie judgement day, punishment, and eternity.
There’s no way around it Jesus expressly forbade practicing homosexual relationships by affirming the covenanted union of one man and one woman as the only normative expression of human sexuality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top