Apparently one of them is so enthralled with the Bill Cosby sex-assault case as to call the justice system broken. I didn't disagree with that point of view, but I pointed out that he actually hasn't been convicted yet, so he's an accused rapist, not an actual one.
Of course in doing so, I was accused of being an 'male apologist' and all the misandry and idiocy that goes along with that. I was also accused of supporting a broken system, to which I replied that I'm not supporting anything, merely pointing out that what they were saying hasn't happened yet.
Well ...
Let's be clear on something -
'innocent until proven guilty' is a fundamental right as built into the Universal Declaration of of Human Rights -
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".
That applies to everyone, or there is no justice for anyone. That's the point. And it doesn't matter if the legal system is broken.
And whether I think O.J. Simpson or George Zimmerman are murderers and that the failure to convict means that the justice system is broken doesn't mean we should just assume everything in the media should be believed and hence, let's declare someone guilty or label someone something. Until Cosby's convicted, he's an 'accused rapist', not a 'rapist'.
People who cannot be bothered that kind of thinking goes along with a non-system of legality many people suffered from for many centuries (lynching, mob rule, hanging, military courts, etc.).
No, it's not semantics. The moment we just simply drop and assume someone's guilty until they've actually been proven so, then we don't have a broken system, but no system at all. How long then will be before those very people who bleat on and on about such things become then victims to the very same kind of idiocy then?
No comments:
Post a Comment