What You Do: Orlog vs Prosecution

Once again, a woman is in the news for making an accusation against a man.

I say "in the news," but I mean "dragged through the mud." Statistics are difficult to get - how do you prove the consent of someone other than by self-reporting? - but generally fall between 2-10% unfounded. This is VERY low for false reporting of a crime, and isn't even restricted to intentional false reporting. "Unfounded" is a pretty vague definition that could mean anything from "not a legal rape" to "not enough evidence to pursue" to "the victim is not sure anything even actually happened."

So we are, again, having the discussion of how many women it takes to screw in a light bulb. The answer is, of course, dependent on whether the man's reputation might be besmirched rather than how such an action may have harmed the woman or women.

Many protests on the man's side revolve around the same old crap of "why did she wait?" This from people who hide spending sprees, gambling addictions, and even affairs from their spouses. People who keep hush-hush about seeing a therapist, wrecking their car while drunk, or having a kid that got busted for joy-riding.

Gee, I dunno. Why aren't you facing up the nasty parts of your life? Answer: Because it's uncomfortable and makes us feel weak or out of control. Compound a woman's choice to make an accusation like this with the sheer numbers that show that even reporting doesn't get much done and is likely to ruin the victim's life even more than the perpetrator's.

But, that's all nitpicking, because the war cry has been sounded: Innocent until proven guilty!

And I sigh, pick myself up and ready the same old tired explanation that is used in all of these situations, as well as when someone gets fired for being racist and the war cry is "free speech."

THOU SHALT NOT CONFLATE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES

Free speech and the mandate of innocent until proven guilty are both intended to prevent the government, government entities, and tyrants/supervillains puppet-mastering the government from using the collective power of the government (specifically the executive branch) to oppress dissenting voices or violate freedoms with tissue-paper claims of criminal activity.

Neither free speech nor innocent until proven guilty is applicable to one's public reputation or how the free and individual citizens and businesses choose to react to that reputation, ie, örlög.

Quite frankly, it is frustrating that "I know they did this thing" isn't always enough. In fact, there are entire plots based on the loopholes that it can create (anyone remember "Double Jeopardy" with Ashley Judd?). But it is good that the word of a single person and no evidence is not enough to put someone in prison (theoretically).

However, your public reputation is not dictated by the rules of the US Constitution. And, as I've had to explain to my hubby recently, you don't get to pick what your örlög is. Your behavior and OTHER PEOPLE'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT BEHAVIOR is your örlög, for better or worse, fair or not.

Fair is when people accused of crimes, often by dozens of victims, are put out of positions of power, influence, etc. Not is when the victims are blamed and dragged through the mud, and the perpetrators get to resume their fame-based lifestyles after a few months off. Looking at you CK and company.

And who ever said life was fair?