[lostalex]

Most civilized countries have "innocent until proven guilty" as a premise of their justice systems.

If you assume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, doesn't that by default mean that you are assuming that the victim of a crime is lying until proven correct?

The policy openly admits that it is better to let 1000 guilty men go free than to put 1 innocent man in jail.

Do you agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" policy, especially when the standards of proving someone guilty are almost impossibly high. especially in rape cases, where it's almost impossible to prove it, it's always explained as just consensual "rough sex". how do you prove a rape with no witneses? especially since most rapes happen from someone the victim knows(boyfriends/husbands/close friends).

Is it better to let 1000 men guilty of rape never face any consequences than to put 1 innocent man in jail?

Do you agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy? or do you think it just victimizes the victims a second time? It means that most victims will not get justice.