"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" vs "Always Believe The Victim"

  • AllKill VIP

    Where do you draw the line?


    These are the 2 common phrases I kept seeing everytime a bullying scandal pops up.


    Innocent Until Proven Guilty

    • It should always be on the accuser to provide proof if they want to accuse someone
    • It us almost impossible to prove a negative, meaning it is very hard to prove you didn't do something
    • For example, I shouldn't need to prove I "didn't do it". It should be you trying to prove that "I did it", then and ONLY THEN can I provide proof on my side to rebutt or disprove your claims
    • The downside is that, a lot of times it is hard to actually provide solid proof of things unless you really say, record it down, or there are already actual records of the incidents happening, so many times it is hard to provide actual proof

    Always Believe The Victim

    • Everytime you choose to throw aside a potential victim for lying (I say potential because it has yet to be proven), it is 1 person potentially not getting the justice they deserve
    • A lot of times because people do not believe the potential victim because of the lack of proof that the victim actually suffered through certain ordeal
    • Because of this, many chose to stay silent
    • As mentioned earlier, because it is hard to provide actual solid proof, we should always keep an open mind when someone speaks about their scenario
    • However, there are many cases whereby the "victim" lies, and they actually get away with it
    • For example, there are many more serious stuff aside from bullying like rape or abuse criminals that after many years are released from jail because only after many years they found out the "victim" was lying
    • Believing the victim without actual proof can have devastating consequences to actual innocent people

    Just some points I thought of, the +s and -s from both sides. Probably not to coherent I'm literally eating lunch while typing this. What are your guys thoughts on this?

  • AllKill VIP

    I've been on both sides of the spectrum, a victim of something and accused of something.


    and sometimes the victim doing the accusing aren't always right and sometimes we are.


    I do not believe anything unless there is concrete evidence. There are always 2 sides to every story and then there is the truth. That's why there's a court system at least here in America, you're found guilty/accused of something you go to court the evidence is provided on both sides and a jury decides your fate.


    I am not going to side with anyone without evidence, because lies can ruin a person's life. The "victims" who do lie, make it hard for TRUE victims to be heard because it ends up being a similar story to the boy who cried wolf.


    If someone is guilty, the truth will come out, evidence will show itself and depending on THE SEVERITY OF THE ISSUE, punishment can be dealt.


    It is EASY to forge documents, manipulate posts, photoshop things, and lie about things THROUGH A COMPUTER. And it's ridiculous that people who aren't/weren't physically part of something can sit here and assume that everyone's word is law and those who choose to follow the same mindset as me are wrong. that's not how it should work.


    And the band wagoning that goes on with it is annoying. It's like you have to agree with people or you fear you'll be harassed, insulted, ridiculed, or shamed if you don't and that's not right or fair to anyone.

  • AllKill VIP

    it all depends on situation I guess?


    let's say police receives call from crying woman

    they come to house and see her badly beaten, and man is standing near here with bruised knuckles, or maybe he tries to run away

    easy case to judge, because proof is right there


    different story

    you are in bus/train, and suddenly some lady points at you and screams 'he grabbed my butt, what are you doing pervert" and she openly accuses you of this

    you know it wasn't you, but there were lot of other people around who could do it

    before you even know when you walk out from the bus/train door police already waits for you because bus driver/train ticketers called them

    everyone sees you taken to police station, how will you prove you didn't do it? in this scenario you have two victims, the woman, and you, even tho you can even treat her as false accuser but in same time we need to remember that someone hurt her, and that person is still out there...

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • AllKill VIP

    If you ask me the following question:


    Would you prefer to see a guilty person go free? Or an innocent person get hanged?


    They're both bad, but I would always choose the first one as the lesser of the two evils. No innocent person deserves to be wrongfully accused and lose their life because of it. There HAS to be sufficient evidence to prevent the legal system from being used and abused by people with less-than-perfect motivations or used as a tool for people's own personal vendettas.

    Quote from icyruios
    • For example, there are many more serious stuff aside from bullying like rape or murder criminals that after many years are released from jail because only after many years they found out the "victim" was lying

    Lying murder victims, you say.


    The rape thing is a whole other can of worms to which your negative for the former argument amounts to short change.

    Do you know what it is like to be a victim of rape and to be denied justice?

    Do you know what it is like to go through the legal system in a case like that?

    It's trauma all over again.


    For someone to go through all of that and to be like, "yeah well innocent until proven guilty", maybe people should ask themselves why they're willing to believe a woman is guilty of perjury without being proven guilty, but afford a much more relaxed judgment of the male accused. Despite the statistical evidence that we have that sexual assault is extremely, alarmingly widespread and perjury from rape victims considerably less so.



    But yes, of course evidence matters, but also understand this: Unless you are in a court room being presented with the evidence yourself, along with instructions from the judge on how to interpret evidence, then you actually have little context to make a definitive judgment. That's why we have court cases in the first place. What MOST people, especially people on here, consider "evidence" is actually very obvious spin that would fall apart if people dug just a little deeper. But they don't. The headlines or the hearsay is enough. So the narrative will always be dominated by those with power. And those power imbalances are not just those of money or fame or societal position. But also gender and race. And ignoring that fact is, at best, kinda stupid.


    Luckily the court of public opinion doesn't really decide the fate of anyone. Nobody is going to die because you have an incomplete picture but made a judgement anyway. Well, nobody without a pre-existing mental condition I guess. So OJ Simpson is regarded as a murderer despite having been found innocent under criminal (but not civil) law. And that's hardly ended his life. Also remember that most countries do not have a death penalty so we can cut it with the ott analogies that make this life or death. People can ultimately think what they want.


    But please, people, just use your brains and don't go along with the dominant narrative because narrative are always just stories.

    Edited once, last by tenfour ().

    there's no smoke without fire. it's immature to think "oh that one rape accusation out of 1000 other accusations turned out to be false blah blah". Believe the victim and believe the justice system to take care of it. Simple as that.

  • AllKill VIP

    I edited the murder part to avoid any confusion.


    I do think it is hard to really give a definite answer because like you said there are various powers in play that lead to unequal outcomes.


    But ultimately it boils down to whether woild you rather "potentially let a guilty person go free" or "potentially charge and convict and innocent person"

    Quote from icyruios

    But ultimately it boils down to whether woild you rather "potentially let a guilty person go free" or "potentially charge and convict and innocent person"

    But none of us are in a jury. When we decide guilt or innocence, there is no criminal penalty levied against the accused. And so the burden of proof is consequently lighter.

    "Believing the victim" in this case does not equal charging and convicting anyone.

    If any of us ARE in a jury, we are given specific instruction on how we determine guilt or innocence.

    Staying neutral means you’re gonna shut the fuck up. You’re not going to go “oh that looks fake” everytime the victim reveals something. That’s what people here don’t really seem to understand.


    This garam case we have pages of people arguing how “everything looks fake” and “not enough evidence”and “that doesn’t look real”


    All those people are victim blaming.


    To answer your question : You can be team innocent until proven guilty and ALSO not victim blame. It is entirely possible to do both.


    Let the courts or company do their job and in the mean time you keep quiet and not question and debate every thing the victim is saying.

    People always bring up false accusations as an argument why we shouldn't always take the victim's side. But they don't consider that "innocent until proven guilty" can also be flimsy because not being able to prove someone's wrongdoing doesn't necessarily mean they're innocent.


    Now if we consider the stats of false accusations in serious crimes versus people getting away with things because of lacking evidence, I don't know how that would look like.

    Anyway my personal stance regardless of what the crime is is to not be on the side of the rich and famous. I don’t mind being wrong.


    So I’m team innocent until proven unless one of the parties is far more privileged than the other. Then it’s guilty until proven innocent. Not in the court of law, but in my personal assessment of the case.


    This isn’t any morally superior stance, this is how much faith I have in the judicial systems of the world which are catered towards serving those with power. :pepepizza:

    Quote from Tenken101

    If you ask me the following question:


    Would you prefer to see a guilty person go free? Or an innocent person get hanged?


    They're both bad, but I would always choose the first one as the lesser of the two evils. No innocent person deserves to be wrongfully accused and lose their life because of it. There HAS to be sufficient evidence to prevent the legal system from being used and abused by people with less-than-perfect motivations or used as a tool for people's own personal vendettas.

    Same for me innocent until proven guilty for exactly these same reasons and it should be the default for everyone regardless of the situation period. Why? Because every legal system civil or criminal follows this code, also everyone here should as well for their own good. Having this mindset protects you ad well should you one day get wrongly accused of something you'd like to have the ability to prove your case and not just be hanged figuratively or literally

    Quote from chounim

    People always bring up false accusations as an argument why we shouldn't always take the victim's side. But they don't consider that "innocent until proven guilty" can also be flimsy because not being able to prove someone's wrongdoing doesn't necessarily mean they're innocent.


    Now if we consider the stats of false accusations in serious crimes versus people getting away with things because of lacking evidence, I don't know how that would look like.

    People understand that it could be flimsy. Real life isn't perfect we work with what we got. Innocent until proven guilty is the rule for every legal case civil or criminal in almost every country ,culture and in some religions. This should be your default mindset period. Because this ultimately protects YOU. We may think we ourselves will never get in trouble, but those things can happen where you get accused of something that you didn't do. The last thing you would want is not have the option to clear your name.


    Example a man and a woman one in Nigeria, the other in Pakistan were stoned to death by the mob one for blasphemy the other on allegations of damaging a holy book. No one could prove definitively that these people did those things. You wouldn't want this " justice" for you? The examples are real News story that actually happened this week let that sink in

    Quote from kazuyakamenashi

    Same for me innocent until proven guilty for exactly these same reasons and it should be the default for everyone regardless of the situation period. Why? Because every legal system civil or criminal follows this code

    But that's not true. In civil cases you absolutely can be guilty without being proven so. At least here in the United Kingdom, if i submit a small claim against someone else and provide the barest of paperwork to argue my claim, I win unless there is a counter argument. Which there often isn't there because the accused doesn't show up.


    Suggesting we apply the standards of a criminal case to all accusations of wrongdoing is an absurd proposition, especially as those standards were created by people extremely paranoid about government and so are weighted in heavily favour of the accused. The reasoning is always that the greater the consequence, the more rigorous an argument for guilt should be.

    That seems right to me.


    What's your proposition? That we can't claim that Will Smith slapped Chris Rock in the face even though we all saw it? Nobody convicted him of assault, and if the case did go to court, there is no way of guarantee that the video evidence would be sufficient.

    Quote from kazuyakamenashi

    People understand that it could be flimsy. Real life isn't perfect we work with what we got. Innocent until proven guilty is the rule for every legal case civil or criminal in almost every country ,culture and in some religions. This should be your default mindset period. Because this ultimately protects YOU. We may think we ourselves will never get in trouble, but those things can happen where you get accused of something that you didn't do. The last thing you would want is not have the option to clear your name.


    Example a man and a woman one in Nigeria, the other in Pakistan were stoned to death by the mob one for blasphemy the other on allegations of damaging a holy book. No one could prove definitively that these people did those things. You wouldn't want this " justice" for you? The examples are real News story that actually happened this week let that sink in

    Public opinion =/= court of law


    We are not the court. And we need not think like the court. In fact that’s how it should be.

    Quote from ISaidISaid

    Public opinion =/= court of law


    We are not the court. And we need not think like the court. In fact that’s how it should be.


    .....And this is why those two people got stoned to death, like the OP said. I don't get your point of view really. It sounds like you're fine with mob mentality.....like the public SHOULDN'T base their opinion on facts, logical thinking, and evidence? Or am I misreading this?

    Quote from Tenken101

    .....And this is why those two people got stoned to death, like the OP said. I don't get your point of view really. It sounds like you're fine with mob mentality.....like the public SHOULDN'T base their opinion on facts, logical thinking, and evidence? Or am I misreading this?

    The public doesn't have access to evidence or the context to understand that evidence. They have to base an opinion on what they see. But public opinion is of minimal consequence in most cases.


    In the case of stonings, are either of you telling me that it would have been okay for the people to have been stoned to death if they had indeed been found guilty of blasphemy/desecration of a holy book in a court of law?

    Is it the stoning you object to or simply that it happened without proper evidence?


    If it's the former, it has no relevance to this conversation. I keep bringing up "consequence" because that is the key point in this. The Public thinks that OJ Simpson killed his wife, but he wasn't stoned to death because that is not the society we live in and that is not the natural consequence to even the gravest of accusations.

    If we want to talk about how severe it is to judge someone without evidence we have to first factor in the consequences of the judgment. Things are not black and white. People thinking that JYP is a paedophile cultist isn't actually hurting him all that much.


    If it's the latter then i don't know what to say to you.

    Things are never black and white so you should always try to stay neutral (which is kind of impossible because you will always lean one way or the other even if just a bit) and try to inform yourself and use your head instead of following what everyone say, it just kind of sucks that in kpop someone will get majorly screwed while the truth comes out, just taking Garam's situation as an example


    If she is innocent she is still going to be reciving hate or the cold shoulder until she is proved innocent which will make her unable to get as many fans as she could or CF deals or other opportunities


    Meanwhile if she is guilty she gets to still promote until she is proven guilty while her victim is forced to see her on variety shows or performing and becoming famous forced to get triggered everytime she sees her and reliving the hell she made her live while being dismissed by some fans and having stress of a multimillionaire company suing you

  • AllKill VIP

    I go for innocent until proven guilty, but still take the accusations serious. For me it depends on the situation and what has been reported and what both sides got to say. I had myself changing my opinion depending on new updates.


    There should be both, those who believe the alleged victim and those who give the accused the benefit of doubt. It gets problematic if one wants to shut down the other side.


    We shouldn’t forget that our memories often plays tricks with us, cause even if the alleged victim tells their truth on how things went down, it doesn’t mean that this is really what happened. It’s called false memories. Also someone might feel wrongly treated by someone based on their own personal experience, trauma, selective perspective and bias and are projecting.


    That’s why you can ask 3 people who witnessed a car accident and all 3 will give different testimonies on what has happened.


    It is pretty easy to feel that someone is bullying you when in reality you both just had a dispute. Often people leave out their contribution to fight and claim that they got mistreated by someone, not mentioning that they weren’t innocent, or they simply didn’t thought that what they did was wrong. (lack of self awareness). And sometimes people leave out details in fear people might not see them as a victim enough.


    That’s of course not always the case and statistically those who accuse others of bullying were indeed bullied. We just have to stop dealing with these things blindly and treat it in a black and white way. These cases are very complexed and nuanced.

    Quote from kazuyakamenashi

    People understand that it could be flimsy. Real life isn't perfect we work with what we got. Innocent until proven guilty is the rule for every legal case civil or criminal in almost every country ,culture and in some religions. This should be your default mindset period. Because this ultimately protects YOU. We may think we ourselves will never get in trouble, but those things can happen where you get accused of something that you didn't do. The last thing you would want is not have the option to clear your name.


    Example a man and a woman one in Nigeria, the other in Pakistan were stoned to death by the mob one for blasphemy the other on allegations of damaging a holy book. No one could prove definitively that these people did those things. You wouldn't want this " justice" for you? The examples are real News story that actually happened this week let that sink in

    i am not a lawyer or a judge so i don't have to implement the same rules on myself as a court of law.


    "innocent until proven guilty" is very nice on paper, but let's not be obtuse and act like it is a foolproof rule and like the rich and powerful don't systematically and constantly get away with all kinds of shit because of legal technicalities or simply leverage and money.

  • AllKill VIP
    Quote from chounim

    i am not a lawyer or a judge so i don't have to implement the same rules on myself as a court of law.


    "innocent until proven guilty" is very nice on paper, but let's not be obtuse and act like it is a foolproof rule and like the rich and powerful don't systematically and constantly get away with all kinds of shit because of legal technicalities or simply leverage and money.

    I don’t know where you are living but bribing judges is pretty rare in developed and democratic countries. Especially if you got a jury. For this to work you can’t just be rich, you must also be extremely influential with many connections and this is only possible among the top 1 percent. The main reason why so many wealthy people are not convicted is because they can afford the best Lawyers, have enough money for independent investigators, can afford top tier expert witnesses etc. A normal commoner can often not even afford a good Lawyer to begin with.

    They often also have a clean police record and before you say “ yeah it’s because they get away with crimes”… no, rich people commit less crimes. People with means are less likely to commit crimes. If someone you suspect to be guilty is found not guilty than it’s often the case of the prosecution not being able to prove their guilt with reasonable doubt. OJ Simpson as an example. He was convicted not guilty because the prosecution messed up the evidence and it didn’t help the lead detective in his case was a known Nazi, but everyone and their mother knew he did it.


    There is no way Bill Gates can kill someone and there is a CCTV footage and he will get away, especially when trials of known people are often public… like common.

    Quote from SandyBee3

    I don’t know where you are living but bribing judges is pretty rare in developed and democratic countries. Especially if you got a jury. For this to work you can’t just be rich, you must also be extremely influential with many connections and this is only possible among the top 1 percent. The main reason why so many wealthy people are not convicted is because they can afford the best Lawyers, have enough money for independent investigators, can afford top tier expert witnesses etc. A normal commoner can often not even afford a good Lawyer to begin with.

    They often also have a clean police record and before you say “ yeah it’s because they get away with crimes”… no, rich people commit less crimes. People with means are less likely to commit crimes. If someone you suspect to be guilty is found not guilty than it’s often the case of the prosecution not being able to prove their guilt with reasonable doubt. OJ Simpson as an example. He was convicted not guilty because the prosecution messed up the evidence and it didn’t help the lead detective in his case was a known Nazi, but everyone and their mother knew he did it.


    There is no way Bill Gates can kill someone and there is a CCTV footage and he will get away, especially when trials of known people are often public… like common.

    my brother is actually a judge lol so i know first hand that it is difficult to bribe a judge? The same can't be said about destroying evidence, bribing witnesses and even silencing victims.


    anyway, these are extreme cases, what i was originally talking about was cases where it is difficult or virtually impossible to prove guilt. posters here want us to be careful in taking the victims' side because of precendents of false accusations and i am saying the same can be said about the "innocent until proven guilty" rule, it can be flimsy and unfair too.

    Quote from SandyBee3

    They often also have a clean police record and before you say “ yeah it’s because they get away with crimes”… no, rich people commit less crimes. People with means are less likely to commit crimes.

    This isn't strictly true. For example, rich people do not use drugs any less than poor people. In fact, when it comes to drugs like cocaine, users are more likely to be wealthy.

    However, rich people are not caught for such offenses because they are not likely to be stopped and searched in the first place.

    Rich neighbourhoods are not policed or patrolled in the same way as poor ones, and the cars that get stopped in those areas are going to be cheaper cars. You can then extrapolate from this that, independent of the drugs issue, more poor people are likely to be found driving while drunk.


    But the post didn't mention corruption rather then systemic advantage. Having access to better lawyers absolutely does mean that rich people are more likely to be found innocent even if they actually aren't.

    Quote from Tenken101

    If you ask me the following question:


    Would you prefer to see a guilty person go free? Or an innocent person get hanged?


    They're both bad, but I would always choose the first one as the lesser of the two evils. No innocent person deserves to be wrongfully accused and lose their life because of it. There HAS to be sufficient evidence to prevent the legal system from being used and abused by people with less-than-perfect motivations or used as a tool for people's own personal vendettas.

    there was a quote i think about the english common law justice system and the beyond reasonable doubt criteria


    'tis better to let 100 guilty people go rather than keep one innocent person locked up

    Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework. Not a societal one.


    It's a structure put in place to limit (and for many governments, it doesn't) the confines of the legal system. It is not the expected or really even the accepted moral code of the public.


    That's why 'beyond reasonable doubt' is also important in the court system.

    some people are insanely dense lol innocent until proven guilty is for criminal court if im found innocent in criminal court and guilty in civil court what does that mean? Yes its better to let to let a possible guilty person go instead of hanging a innocent person but we are not talking about hanging someone in the court of public opinion. Lets say im a company and we hire a celebrity to endorse our project and that person is accused of rape. Yea i would rather drop a innocent person than have a potential rapist endorse our product.

    First and foremost the 'victim' must come out and be identified not be posting anonymously. If you want justice and recourse, you must appear with evidence. Just because you have a grudge against someone, you think you can freely use the Internet, gather haters to harm them. Luckily HYBE is not SOURCE, they have access to lawyers and investigators so everybody should wait for due process to find out the truth.

    Quote from Tenken101

    .....And this is why those two people got stoned to death, like the OP said. I don't get your point of view really. It sounds like you're fine with mob mentality.....like the public SHOULDN'T base their opinion on facts, logical thinking, and evidence? Or am I misreading this?

    You seem very confused who said laws were based on LOGICAL thinking? I’ll give an example if a sports team has a history of locker room talk and a guy has a history of sexual violence against woman but has the means to burry evidence of his assault, he will be a free man under the court of law.


    But the people around who know the circumstances need not be stupid about it. In fact it’s the opposite.


    Because you are aware of the circumstances, because you’re are aware of the nature of both the victim and the perpetrator, you have the ability to make informed decisions that the courts will not be able to make.


    I don’t know about the rest of the world but there are SO MANY “open secret” crimes like this. Where we know who the criminals are but we know they can’t be charged under the law because of lack of evidence.


    I’m not sure if you’re trying to purposely sound stupid or not because this is such a basic thing I refuse to believe so many people on AKP really think the courts and how they view crime is how the world should view crime.


    It’s such a fundamental thing to not do so.


    Talking about mob mentality. You’re not free from public consequence. No one is. Smh.

    I feel like very few people are actually neutral about these scandals, most of them, especially the kpop stans tend to be quite subjective and side with idols while the gp mostly stands for the victims. It's a never ending cycle really, the GP will witch-hunt the idol while kpop stans attack the alleged victims. There are two major problems here:


    1. Kpop stans hold these idols to such high standards, they think it's impossible of them to commit any wrong doings despite not really knowing who these people truly are and most often than not, attack and harass the alleged victims before any verdict is out. I've legit seen arguments spanning from 'oppa/unnie smiles so prettily at camera, they would never' to 'wow, jealous people, my fav would never'.


    2.Of course, the ones who falsely accuse others, making it 100x times harder for the victims to come out and tell their stories. It's really sad to see people losing their careers and reputations over false rumors, not to mention how mentally stressing and damaging such a situation can be.

    In kpop blind accusation cases victim and accused switch spots so neither takes can work


    Someone makes an online accusations, that makes them the alleged victim and the other side the accused.


    But then the companies sue the other accuser, making them the plaintiff, and now the burden of proof of defamation falls on the idol and the company.


    So both bsides are the accused and accuser at the same time.


    :pepe-shame:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • This thread contains 13 more posts that have been hidden for guests, please register yourself or login to continue reading.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login