Last edited Mon Sep 18, 2017, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)
The problem here is that everyone wants to discuss legal. But institutions are allowed to have their own codes of conduct, especially private institutions. And behavior that may not rise to the level of "illegal", or at least where there will be difficulty in establishing that threshold, can still expose behavior which is in severe violations of a code of conduct.
I'm not saying that accused shouldn't get an opportunity to defend themselves, but we have to acknowledge that in the past, institutions were far more concerned about the rights of the accused, than the defense of the victims. Have a few cases gone too far in the other direction? Possibly. But as a general guideline, institutions need to make sure the victim is being given a certain "credibility" standard as well.
We can talk about the benefit of the doubt of the accused, but the way that generally works out is that the victim is presumed to be presenting false testimony until proven otherwise. Alternately, as we have seen, there is far more reason for the accused to lie, than for the victim. The victim, even if successful, often has to admit to behaviors that will be judged severely, despite the fact that they are in fact a victim. But for the accused, lying generally puts them into a victim status, with sympathy being the primary result.
Institutions need to work towards processes that investigate, with an emphasis on establishing credibility, not merely protecting the rights of the accused. And they also need to be prepared to act, based upon conduct which may not be criminal, if credible reason exists.
= new reply since forum marked as read
