[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

No doubt. Really it may be that it is time that we just admit there always will be an injustice one or another. In the end it may be better that we protect the much larger group (victims of assault) versus the much smaller subset (the falsely accused). In the end, yes they are both victims. The falsely accused have to be a fraction of the number of actual victims. In the ideal, we would protect both, but there never will be an ideal. Protecting the accused may save the falsely accused, but at the price of a large number of victims.

I would like to think that protecting the victims would weed out the false accusers but I don't know that to be true.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And as aside, I have been trying to be somewhat PC in the way I way I have been referring to this, but the fact is this is a men vs. women issue. The number of women guilty of this is probably such a small number that it could literally be a rounding error. Men victimize women by huge factor more than women to men. Heck, men victimize men probably by a higher rate than women victimize men. Of course, power has a large influence on this, and women are gaining more power to allow an increase of women predators, but is doubtful that their numbers will ever be anywhere close to the number of male predators.

Define the issue. If the issue is sexual misconduct and sexual crimes, I don't think that is as simple as men vs women. I feel pretty comfortable saying that most men who are falsely accused are not for those things.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Extremes are the problem here. No one is going to protect themselves from all potential situations. The idea, though, that we will ever get to a situation that people (and here women, but really this could be said of a lot of potential crimes) will not need to protect themselves from possible crimes is pretty pie-in-the-sky. There are riskier actions than others. I travel for work into a huge number of high crime areas. It would be silly for me not to try to be aware of my surroundings. Should I have to? No. Should I? Hell yes. If I am a victim of a crime, I could look back and say "I should have...". That still doesn't make me at fault some how. The criminal is always the guilty party, even if I leave my car unlocked, or go into a sketchy alley. Some kind of common sense is needed.

As I mentioned before I am talking about more about workplace situations as opposed to out on the streets. So I pose the same rhetorical response that I posed to tarcone. You are meeting with Harvey Weinstein for your employment in his office. He does what he does. What is the proactive measure for that? What about the proactive measures for the button under Matt Lauer's desk I don't know have an answer for that.