Believe in evidence

So glaringly manifest are the illogic and inherent unfairness of the faddish 'believe all survivors' cry today so popular in certain reprobate precincts that pointing them out seems a waste of time.

But there are persons, including in influential positions, who persist in urging that nonsense. So, a brief examination seems in order.

'Believe all survivors' posits without corroboration that each unproved claim is valid, its assertion unassailable. In courtrooms, that's rightly derided as assuming facts not in evidence. 

In civilized societies, those claiming to have been wronged are -- at least, ideally -- appropriately heeded and protected, and their allegations thoroughly investigated. A nation should defend its citizens and punish those who would harm them. 

Any offense against one is, by logical extension, an offense to the larger society. By meting out necessary punishments, we are expressing shared revilement and defending the whole.

But due process for accused citizens, including the presumption of innocence and insistence that guilt be established, is no less legitimate a component of our justice system. Do not the Constitutional rights of accused persons also deserve vigorous state safeguarding?

Two horrible incidents made possible by the 'believe all survivors' sentiment, as well as racial bigotry, merit recall. They illustrate the 
sickening, unAmerican injustice given succor by the uncritical credulity and disdain for Constitutional evidential standards some today insist upon.

In 1931 Alabama, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates claimed to have suffered sexual assaults. Based on absolutely nothing but their testimony, the 9 teenaged Scottsboro Boys were convicted. 

Of course, the Scottsboro Boys were years later shown to be wholly innocent. No such crime had occured; Price and Bates had lied.

And in 1955, Mississippi grocery store-clerk Carolyn Bryant falsely accused 14 year-old Emmett Till of whistling at her. As a result of only Bryant's deceitful claim, poor Till was tortured and lynched.

The repugnance of the crime committed against the innocent boy because Bryant's falsely asserted victimhood had been believed grieves the heart, yet today. Just as no woman should suffer sexual assault, no man should be jailed or lynched because of uncorroborated testimony. 

Yes, these are only two cases. But they illustrate a larger danger; their monstrous injustices were enabled by the flawed 'believe all survivors' notion. By learning from them the perils possible when all allegations are uncritically accepted, we can ensure similar travesties do not again occur.

We have rules of evidence and rights protections, and that is a good thing. Taking someone's freedom is serious; it should never be made easy or done without due regard.

General and rightful disgust at a type of offense does not establish that such occurred in each specific instance alleged. Every accused person enjoys Constitutional protections.

Robustly maintaining the rights of the accused is every bit as vital to justice system legitimacy as supporting claimed victims and pursuing redress for them.

The system works properly only when it works for all.