There have appeared several OPs about Woody Allen that touch on believing/not believing his accuser. The, all to predictable, push back is all about Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence. As one DUer framed it:


One can refuse to accept the accuser's claims as fact without defending Allen.

It's not about him. To fail to accept the accusations as truth is not defending him.

It's not about her. To fail to accept the accusations as truth is not to claim she's lying.



Or consider another's take:


Everyone is free to think Allen is guilty or not. The Constitution of the United States gives Allen the right to be tried in front of a jury of his peers. It is exactly because of emotional cases like this that we have our right to a trial by jury.


This is not to call out these DUers (as their comments are fairly representative of a segment of DU); but rather to note the difference in treatment of alleged sex offenders, where they are given the benefit of the doubt, compared to the banksters, where apparently we just skip the alleged part.

Or further, the treatment of the alleged victims of the abuse, who are to be disbelieved, or at a minimum, closely observed in case they are making a false, or unprovable, claim. This places the victim of one unproved crime on the same footing as the perpetrator of another unproved crime.

Just my observation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024439204