I'm not suggesting that is my standard. I'm suggesting, before declaring an individual to be a "rapist" and discussing their alleged crimes as if they were the unimpeachable truth, we ought at the very least to require something more than mere allegations. Ideally, this would of course occur in a criminal trial.
What if I were to accuse you, right now, of rape – having others corroborate my story? Are you ready to accept being 'censured', being the subject of despicable verbal attack, based on the "50/50 odds" I am telling the truth? Abominable.
> The converse cost of a wrong censure are much lower then they are in the criminal case
I suggest you read up on the effects false sexual assault allegations have on the accused. People lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their friends. Is being falsely imprisoned worse? Yes. Much worse? No.
What if I were to accuse you, right now, of rape – having others corroborate my story? Are you ready to accept being 'censured', being the subject of despicable verbal attack, based on the "50/50 odds" I am telling the truth? Abominable.
> The converse cost of a wrong censure are much lower then they are in the criminal case
I suggest you read up on the effects false sexual assault allegations have on the accused. People lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their friends. Is being falsely imprisoned worse? Yes. Much worse? No.