Quote:
Originally Posted by Noid
As I said earlier, it costs nothing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and it doesn't immediately mean you throw the accused into jail and throw away the key. That's why investigations into these things happen. I just don't see any benefit to assuming someone is lying about sexual assault.
|
This is pretty much how I feel. It feels to me like when someone in the public eye is accused, there's always going to be people cynical that the accuser is making a false accusation just to "make a name for themselves" or whatever, and I've just never bought into it. I'm not throwing the book at the accused, but I don't see a purpose in assuming the other person is lying about being sexually assaulted.
In my opinion, if someone is accused with sufficient proof, the individual who is accused should do one of two things:
1) Admit to it if they have done it.
or
2) Provide proof that what they are accused of is false.
Innocent until proven guilty should of course always continue to be the standard for actually going to prison or other punitive punishments. But being an actor, musician, or whatever else is a privilege. If there is reason to believe that someone has abused that privilege then it should be taken away immediately. After that, it is up to society to decide whether they can be forgiven and resume that kind of lifestyle until the authorities can look into the matter.
In Enzo's case, I still believe he was fired for his failure to disclose initially. Had he disclosed he likely would still be on paid suspension until the investigation can be concluded.