Civic Issue #3: Sexual Harassment: Due Process & the Victim versus the Accused
In the last few years, there have been many emerging social movements intended to bring attention to accusations of sexual harassment or assault in the workplace and, more generally, in the everyday lives of everyday Americans. #MeToo, Time’s Up, and Believe All Women are three such social movements that have successfully sparked plentiful conversations in the United States on this issue, be they constructive or otherwise. Stories like Harvey Weinstein’s alleged harassment of many actresses or the widely-publicized case between previously-prospective Supreme Court Justice and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford are only some of the examples from which the impetus for these movements was born. Regardless, it indisputable that occurrences of sexual harassment and assault have been drawn into the spotlight and given more attention more recently.
While there are obviously those who are either hardwired to be one of these reprehensible offenders or who experience a temporary lapse in judgement and commit these heinous acts, the nation-wide controversy has nothing to do with whether or not sexual assault or harassment is bad. Most people’s opinions land in the affirmative – that sexual deviance is indeed bad – and that stance is hardly disputed around the country.
Instead, many people take issue with how cases of sexual abuse are approached. Alternatively stated, many people believe that these cases are mishandled and follow one of the two (if not both) scenarios: there is not enough tenderness taken to accommodate the victims or many people presume the guiltiness of the accused. Either way, these two issues characterize the national controversy surrounding the larger controversy: should all woman be believed? Does not believing them instantly disenfranchise them or other women from coming forward? Shouldn’t the accused be given due process? If not, doesn’t that undercut our entire justice system? Has the believe-all-victims mentality gone too far?
Allow me to delve deeper into the issue and hopefully answer some of these questions.
It is not at all accurate for me to say that one ideological affiliation or political party or even gender grouping has the same opinion on the matter – at least not monolithically and without exception. Many people from many backgrounds hold various opinions, and accordingly, value different aspects of the conversation as a whole. Like I said, while it isn’t fair to group any collection of people together, it is fair to say that the Left generally defends and believes victims and the extent of their experiences, whereas the Right generally defends the rights of the accused as well as those of the victim and his or her right to tell their story.
Speaking broadly, the Left holds the belief that victims should almost always be believed, as well as that they generally don’t fabricate stories of sexual assault. This side of the argument usually posits that being skeptical of victims can make it appear as if those victims are potentially not being believed. Following this premise, this could potentially disenfranchise victims and make it seem as if their opinions are invalid or not worthy of being heard, which could stop other victims from coming forward. Also, the Left is more apt to believe that the accused are guilty of the crimes they have been accused of, which follows in line with the notion that the victim is telling the truth.
As for the Right, their more widespread perspective is not that they don’t disbelieve the women, it’s that the accused have just as much right to defend themselves from accusations as victims do to make them. They invoke the due process argument (that everyone has a right to a fair and speedy trial) and the presumption of innocence (that everyone is innocent until proven guilty). The Right believes that victims also have the protected right to recount their side of the story or their experience and be heard, and that the accused has similar rights.
The Left can often perceive the Right as being anti-victim for not believing their experiences right away. They have also accused the Right of being less sensitive with the victims than they should be. The Right, on the other hand, sees problems with believing all survivors. It often accuses the Left of devaluing and trivializing assault allegations because they are more inclined to beelieve all or most of them on face-value. There is certainly no shortage of controversy within the parameters of this discussion.
So what can be done?
I think both sides contribute very valid points to the conversation as a whole.
I think that all accusations should be taken seriously. Tribal political identities shouldn’t dictate whether a not a victim or accused is believed or not, which is far too often what happens. I think that people need to step back and hear all sides before arriving at any preconceived notions. Every fact, every witness, every perspective, and every piece of evidence should be collected and weighed and given fair and equal consideration.
I don’t think that believing every victim without exception is a safe measure. You see, there have been many accounts of false rape or assault allegations. On that same token, there have been significantly more truthful accusations. The problem with believing every victim unconditionally, though, means that some people can and will be falsely convicted for crimes they haven’t committed. That doesn’t mean that I support not believing those who make accusations, it’s just that I believe every involved party should be involved, and if the accused really committed the terrible act or the accuser orchestrated the story, the one in the wrong should go to jail. Sometimes, neither will happen because there isn’t enough evidence. That’s unfortunate in both regards.
I think for people to start approaching the issue with the same values, we must put value on the principles of the law, like due process and the presumption of innocence, while simultaneously treating every accusation very seriously and every survivor of the alleged abuse as a human being that has suffered. We need to start being more sensitive to their experience without sacrificing the rights of the accused. Finally, we need to shed these tribal identities and group think and look into issues from a more objective lens.
What do you guys think about the issue as a whole?
Leave a Reply