The problem isn’t that it’s possible false accusations can crop up against wealthy people, it’s the way people will use this verdict as justification to push back against any rape accusations. False accusations that go the distance like this are extremely rare.
@SRCJJ He’s not innocent. He’s not guilty. There’s a difference. I appreciate that it sounds like I’m quibbling over semantics, and he can walk around saying he’s innocent but it’s not like his attorneys proved the rape didn’t happen, they’re only job is to poke holes in the prosecution’s story.
There are loads of people doing exactly what you did, re-iterating that “not guilty” is not “innocent” (which is obviously correct). But considering you cannot get an innocent verdict out of the courts, the inference is that he is in fact guilty but the prosecutors just couldn’t prove it.
Reiterating that a not guilty verdict is a distinct concept from being factually innocent, isn’t automatically making an inference that he’s actually innocent. The jury verdict stands, it is what it is.
I have had the distinct impression from your posts you are implying you believe he isn’t innocent and you are playing down the fact he’s been found not guilty in a court of law, and therefore you think it’s valid to decry statements of support for a man who has been proven not to be guilty.
It’s an important distinction to draw, and isn’t just semantics.
On several social media posts about this I’ve seen top rated comments with thousands of likes saying things like “those liars should be locked up for as long as he would have been if found guilty”. And the reason for that is people thinking that him being found not guilty equates to him being proven as innocent, as this framing is necessary in order to conclude that they are proven liars who should get custodial sentences.
Beyond the Mendy case, the wider issue is that this line of thinking can and will be applied to other cases too, and the idea that victims are liars because their accusation didn’t result in a conviction will persist. Rape is already a crime that has truly horrible conviction rates, we need to be wary of making victims less likely to report this sort of crime.
I am focusing more on the general issue of rape than this particular case when making these comments, because ultimately I think that the biggest issues are to be found when looking at this on a macro level, and not the micro (ie Mendy specifically)
Each individual footballer has every right to offer support to Mendy in this specific case, and I won’t hold it against them for a second, because ultimately it may well be the case that he is innocent, and why shouldn’t they support a mate/colleague who has just been through that sort of process? False allegation do happen rarely, and as a man, if it was me in that rare situation, I would really hope that friends and colleagues would at least find it in themselves to back me after being found not guilty.
But I do believe that scores of footballers, who are world famous people, coming out with supportive statements here could have a negative effect, as outlined in the post Bellerin liked, and above in my post. I hold none of them personally responsible for that, I genuinely don’t, but I do think that it is good that people are still highlighting the wider, societal issue surrounding “not guilty” not equalling “innocent” and how horribly difficult it is for victims to get justice through the legal system through sharing those sorts of statistics.
And good on Bellerin for publicly endorsing the message, as far as I am concerned.
Given that it is impossible for a person to be found “innocent” the line of argument about the difference between innocent and not guilty seems to me in part to be a justification some people use to justify tarring someone with an allegation even after acquittal.
The statement from the group that Bellerin supported carried an underlying theme to me that statements of support for those found not guilty are inherently a bad thing, they are not. And indeed it seems to imply that every not guilty verdict is a bad thing, when they are not.
Wow. Real astute legal analysis. Have you considered teaching law?
@Leper The statement from Versus was saying that footballers should use their platform to create social change and that bigging up Mendy after a not guilty verdict isn’t really helping to create social change.
I think the suggestion that you as a lawyer (albeit within a legal system that is the laughing stock of the developed world) can’t see the intent, motivation and implications of the organisation’s statement is rather disingenuous.
I’m just saying what I think their statement is getting at. They’re saying that it’s not positive social change to celebrate this particular verdict. I don’t think they’re saying that every not guilty verdict is a bad thing. We know that some not guilty verdicts are good things or that there are righteous exonerations like the Central Park Five. I think what they’re getting at is that it’s not helpful for social change to have high profile footballers celebrating this verdict.
No, and I don’t think the statement from Versus suggests he was either. It’s specifically asking high profile footballers to use their very large platform in a different way. It’s not that controversial.
They don’t have to use their platform in another way. They’re content with using it to support a colleague who’s endured 2.5 years of hell. And that’s absolutely fine.
Versus shouldn’t be telling people how to use their platform or implying it is wrong that they use their platform to support a colleague.
Do it again? What are you talking about? Do you really believe a person would go through round after round of police interviews, attorney interviews, testifying, have that person be found not guilty and then just…do it again? That’s just laughable.