> While I definitely agree that false accusation should be treated far more seriously and consistently than it seems to be, I think this is going too far in the other direction. Why should a victim of crime be obliged to prove a case against their aggressor? [emphasis added]
Wait -- that's already true. Do you think the present system relieves a plaintiff of the burden of evidence? In a rape trial, the plaintiff has to produce evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the state can do little to help (most rape cases rely on circumstantial evidence).
And "innocent until proven guilty" is a cornerstone of Western legal systems -- this discussion isn't about that, and shouldn't be.
> Discretion in enforcing the law leads to gaming the system, protected and taboo groups, corruption, and ultimately profound injustice.
Yes, and it's unconstitutional as well, therefore illegal and grounds for dismissal if it can be proven. But the suggestion being made here doesn't really address it -- both civil and criminal courts are equally likely to treat cases selectively, as do the police.
Wait -- that's already true. Do you think the present system relieves a plaintiff of the burden of evidence? In a rape trial, the plaintiff has to produce evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the state can do little to help (most rape cases rely on circumstantial evidence).
And "innocent until proven guilty" is a cornerstone of Western legal systems -- this discussion isn't about that, and shouldn't be.
> Discretion in enforcing the law leads to gaming the system, protected and taboo groups, corruption, and ultimately profound injustice.
Yes, and it's unconstitutional as well, therefore illegal and grounds for dismissal if it can be proven. But the suggestion being made here doesn't really address it -- both civil and criminal courts are equally likely to treat cases selectively, as do the police.