The victim says that at first her alleged assailant was “unknown” to her and that she figured out it was Winston in early January. ...If she really believed in treating him as innocent until proven guilty, then she would not call the accuser a "victim", and it would not be a "hard call" to decide whether schools should punish an innocent man.
Whether schools should punish athletes who have been accused but not convicted — or in Winston’s case, even charged — is a hard call. But if athletes like Winston are getting a pass from the police and prosecutors, and from the university disciplinary system, then their continuing presence on the field starts to look like an enabling factor. Sure, they deserve to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
This is a story of a big black boy having a consensual sexual act with a blond white girl. However much Bazelon and others might disapprove, this is legal under current American law. There is substantial evidence of his innocence.
Failure to accept the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the main faults with the family court, and with popular opinion about it. Many times I have heard otherwise intelligent people say something like, "okay the accusation was false, but how do you know he did not abuse the child in some other way?"
Post a Comment