Yep, ethics, morality and Justice!
Let's check in with you on other things, then: Is committing fraud,
i.e., lying to someone, in order to have sex with them a felony? Should a man go to prison for years because he lied about his job, or told a woman he wasn't married, in order to get her into bed?
How about other crimes: Should the Goldmans go to prison? Why should they be allowed to sue a man found not guilty?
If a person is found guilty, what of the people who said that person wasn't? You know, the character witnesses? Should they go to prison for attempting to aid and abet crime?
Maybe where you come from the legal system is such a wreck, but in the U.S., carving out a special exception for people found not guilty of a particular range of crimes would be problematic and regressive.
Because around here, the problem we have looks like this: A woman reported a rape, but she was in transitional living, so the cops refused to believe her, dragged her back home, made her apologize to her housemates for falsely accusing anyone of rape, and at the stake of being evicted if she did not. At any rate, the suspect was eventually caught, several states away and several rapes later, and to this day the police department involved has no idea what they did wrong. But a serial rapist was allowed to accrue victims across states so a couple cops could feel better about bullying a vulnerable and disempowered victim.
The American legal system is devised to be hard to convict a crime; law enforcement has been working for years to erode this, but one part reamaining intact is that one need not be innocent to be not guilty.
Maybe in Her Majesty's dominions, it's different.
Oh, hey, there's that one high court in Italy that found a woman can't be raped if she was wearing tight jeans, on the grounds that rapists aren't competent enough to remove the jeans without her willing assistance. Does that mean she should go to prison for having accused rape?
What I don't understand about your complaint on behalf of the falsely accused is why it is so typal about its blurring of innocence, to the one, and lack of guilt according to particular rules and constraints, to the other.
Also, your syntax, "But in recent times ...", manages to land precisely on an abstract line in which you can be read as suggesting the question of inaccurate or unproven accusatins are somehow novel.
This is nothing new. And along the lines of a point known as,
¿Could You Please Not? or,
¿Could You Please Fail To? we once again find the complaint (
ahem!) accidentally hitting typal marks.
This is how it always goes, and there is nothing new about your topic post.
Meanwhile, which complications do we really need to dive into in order to satisfy you? That, too, is something absent from rote masculinist complaint. Sometimes I wonder if this just sounds good to some dude, out there, so he ends up cornering himself at the outset and bricking in his beliefs as a shield; or if maybe he just believed it from the outset and thinks he's making some sort of real point.
Also, in re your sister, I can genuinely tell you about an American woman I know who is extraordinarily weary of the #MeToo moment; your posts suggest you would not understand what this actually means. Do you really know what your sister means?
Like I said, though, I'm thinking of the American version, which might not be formally applicable in what passes for justice under the Crown's supervision. However, charging a vast majority of the clutch of inaccurate accusations that do occur would test our system in ways no prosecutor generally wishes to, and the thing about that is the proverbial question currently buzzed as choosing this hill to die on. That is to say, if
this is the priority by which we are going to test E & O as presumed calculated lies, we're probably doing it wrong. Maybe a position looks defensible, and maybe it even is, but if we look at what goes into it, these are the crimes we will prosecute in order to defend that arrangement of principles of justice? Compared to the statistical reality of who lies when, and what are the stakes? Compared to the number of traumatized memories and neurotic confusions of circumstance, the actual number of prosecutable lies remains, at least in my society, rather quite low. So, it's true, most people, including your sister, will agree the lies should be prosecuted. But compared to your blurring of lines, and the implications in my society, the whole discussion reeks of a particular masculinist politic that often frames itself as a reaction against something recent; as to the difference, there is a question depending on the details of our different legal systems, but it is also true that certain affecting prejudices swirling in each of our societies are not entirely dissimilar, and even have common historical heritage.