[user104658]

Legally the latter is the only way to do things without risking gross miscarriages of justice however some people get confused and believe that legal due process and individual judgement are one and the same, when obviously, they are not. To demonstrate;

If some scumbag husband abuses and beats up your sister but a court finds that there isn't enough evidence to find him guilty of a crime, and he walks out of court... you obviously don't have to turn to your sister and say "Oh so he's innocent after all sis, why u been lying?".

It shouldn't be a difficult distinction but I know some people find it challenging.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Legally the latter is the only way to do things without risking gross miscarriages of justice however some people get confused and believe that legal due process and individual judgement are one and the same, when obviously, they are not. To demonstrate;

If some scumbag husband abuses and beats up your sister but a court finds that there isn't enough evidence to find him guilty of a crime, and he walks out of court... you obviously don't have to turn to your sister and say "Oh so he's innocent after all sis, why u been lying?".

It shouldn't be a difficult distinction but I know some people find it challenging.

.....


To add, sexual abuse and rape cases are extremly difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and convictions rates are very very low, does that mean the "victims" are all liars? No I don't think so. It's not a straight forward answer to this but in theory obviously Innocent until proven guilty should apply.