mp46
New Member
Believing a credible persons version of events isn't necessarily a failure of innocent until proven guilty, it's no different than any other crime in this regard, if you don't believe the person, then you aren't going to investigate the crime. In order to investigate something, an investigator has to believe what the person is saying to an extent.
I also don't believe societies response to people who get accused of sexual assault is a strictly modern phenomenon. As far as I remember, if there was word someone you knew was a skunk or did grease-ball shit, you still looked down on that person with derision and didn't associate with them. Stands to reason if most people feel that way, someone who actually gets charged with a crime is going to get the same treatment.
This is not a unique phenomenon. I also think, as with any other crime, it is essential to believe a credible witness in order to even have something to investigate. As I mentioned, if you don't believe someone, then you probably aren't going to investigate.
I'd have to somewhat disagree, I've been in a position to investigate claims before. As an enforcer of rules and law that persons job, let alone moral obligation, is to investigate regardless if you believe them or not. Now of course you'll have enforcement officials that ignore it and round file a complaint but that simply goes against their job title. There's been times where boy that cried wolf eventually had a legit complaint, but regardless of how many times someone cries wolf the investigator has a duty to investigate.

