44
Makes sense, America. The court of CNN and Politico thank you for your alliance (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Please tell me i'm not the only one who still finds this ridiculous and believes that only a court of law can determine guilt?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

You completely missed the point of my comment. (And I'm not OP.)

My point is not that Platner must actually be a victim. My point, which went over your head, is that "always believe victims" could just as easily be applied to Platner as to his accuser. This is why we shouldn't punish people just based on accusations. Investigate every claim. Take every claim seriously. But it's unamerican to punish people without trial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    It didn't go over my head.

    American bootlickers are so uncreative. Accusations don't need to ruin lives but the obsession with punishment and 100% right vs 100% wrong doesn't leave any option.

    This is the environment that abuse thrives in. Harmed people see what scrutiny they will face because the risk of "ruining a man's life" over a false accusation is too much to take chances with. People who would perpetuate the abuse know that they can exploit others because reporting would lead to being called a traitor. The community doesn't get the opportunity to make sure that people are safe, because even putting out feelers to check if certain behaviors are normal before it progresses to bigger harm is risky. It totally ignores all the other systemic barriers that face marginalized folk to begin with. Maybe the cops harass you and your friends. Are you going to run to them for help?

    Maybe you don't want the person to face punishment but you want them to acknowledge that they harmed you and demonstrate to the community that they have grown and will not harm others. In the punishment model people who have been harmed face blame for not coming forward sooner to prevent the same from happening to others. Why should harmed people face this responsibility?

    In a better model, if all parties agreed to it, alternative justice practices could be used. They could come together and identify the harm and come to a shared agreement of what happened and what could have been done to prevent the harm. They can then discuss how to correct some of the impacts. This can be done privately, quickly, and with the guidance of trusted community members who can ensure the process is safe. Part of the resolution would be to determine how much of this should be shared with the wider community and how.

    If the case that an assault did occur, perhaps the outcome is that the community would come together to support the harmed party in healing and dealing with any practical impacts, something they may not have been able to do before if it wasn't known. The accused may be part of this if appropriate. Together, the community and the person who did the harm could decide if they should be in a position of power, and if they should be focusing on being a representative or focused on addressing how to prevent this from happening while supporting others with taking on the role of representative. A person who thinks losing the community's trust is punishment should not be leading! The universe is not fair and bad things happen. If someone feels entitled to a role they are going to have a very hard time. Maybe they can be paired with others who have gone through similar things as accountability buddies and safe people to work through difficult unlearning where they don't need to be afraid to say they are struggling.

    If it turns out the person making the accusations either lied for gain or the situation was complex and after talking through it was determined that harm occurred but there is no accountability to be taken or the accountability is equally shared, this could be addressed privately. No need to be scared of ruining someone's life if something felt wrong but you aren't sure if it was worth speaking up about.

    If the accusations were falsified and shared in the community, the resolution could be that the person making the accusations needs to take accountability for the harm they caused including sharing with the community the steps they are taking to address why they sought to weaponize accusations. The accused could continue seeking the leadership position with that put behind them. Because the community has trust in the accountability process being accused of something having it come out that it was false does not leave a stain on someone.

    People say all sorts of terrible things to leaders. You get to act as a pinching bag/processing space while people sort themselves out. You have to realize this is part of what leadership is. If you aren't going to be open to working with people to actually understand what their issue is even if you know what they are saying in the moment is bullshit, you are not going to do a good job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I agree that restorative justice models have merit, but I think this is a red herring to the discussion at hand. We're not talking about some ideal perfect world. We're talking about whether a Maine Senate candidate should resign in the next week.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    I mean, I'm not talking about if he should resign. It doesn't concern me.

    The restorative justice example is extremely relevant because it shows the harm that is caused by being obsessed with punishment.

    If stepping down can only be seen as punishment then he has no choice.

    • If he steps down for whatever reason she will be blamed. If she doesn't make a police report, she will be accused of lying. If it goes to court and he's found not guilty, she gets accused of lying. If he pleas to a lesser charge or agrees to some other form of justice people will say "see, he didn't get convicted of what he was accused of! It didn't happen! She lied to harm him!". Isn't the idea that it's better to let 100 people free than one person be falsely convicted? But at the same time unless it is proven in court it didn't happen?
    • If he runs, wins and later agrees the accusations are true and wants to repair the harm, is he safe to say that? Will people tell him to keep his mouth shut because winning is more important? What happens if it comes out later and it also comes out that people knew? How can the party be trusted to represent the public good?

    If people were committed to figuring out the best path forward for everyone rather than being right or wrong I'm sure they could figure something out. But if him choosing to step down so that another candidate can be the offical nomine is seen as him being "punished" there is no way the situation can be discussed until after the election. So he runs and people get told you should report assault, but only in very specific ways and not if the accused has a chance to face consequences as a result.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I had a nice time with my flowers and thought about options. Here are two possible ways he can run while minimizing harm:

    1. He can tell the party he is innocent and intends to run, and that it will be sorted out afterwards. They can't do anything about it, but he owes a duty of care to the party he is representing and should listen to their concerns. He can ask them to help with messaging and shutting down any speculation and accusations about the accuser(s). He can tell the public that he is innocent and intends to follow due process. He can remind everyone that accusations need to be taken seriously and that people need to be safe to speak up. It endangers people if they are tried in the court of public opinion and it does not reflect the values of the party. He can remind them that if the accusations are intended to discredit him, then this will be helped if his supporters attack the accuser or her credibility. They aren't going to sort this out immediately and we need to let the justice system take it's course (if that's what they are doing) because the american justice system is the best in the world or something.

    2. It would be even better if they could agree to some sort of restorative justice, especially given she does not appear to want to involve the police. He can maintain his innocence, show that he wants to understand why he is being accused and that he wants people to feel safe coming forward. He can ask people to refrain from attacking the accused, and to let them go through the process. Doing this isn't saying he did these things, but trying to understand what happened and how two people can see it differently. It would be a great opportunity for a discussion about how complicated discussions around SA can be. It can be a jump off point for discussion on how we can make power dynamics safe, and the importance of making space for hard conversations. It if comes out she was lying to harm him, they need to condem that behavior and highlight that it's not just to discredit him but also to divide people. False accusations don't mean that people don't deserve to speak up and that we should be suspicious of accusations. Because that's what the bad guys want. They want you to hate women, and the woke because they are stronger when we are divided. Etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent