But sigh, it was not to be.
I have been a victim of sexual assault and forcible confinement, over a period of considerably more than an hour.
Anybody want to assail my credibility without any basis, now?
We have courts, for two reasons:
- to prevent the lynching (literally or figuratively) of falsely accused persons;
- to prevent people who harm others from evading the consequences that society considers to be appropriate and necessary, whether through influence or intimidation, or by benefiting from bias against the victim.
What the hell is the point of having courts where society and the accused can present their facts and make their arguments, if we're going to engage in this kind of wild speculation and opinion-flinging? I'm not saying that guilty people are not sometimes found "not guilty" in court; I'm saying that I'm at a complete loss to know why anyone would want to trumpet an opinion about something s/he can't possibly know enough about to even hazard a reasonable guess.
On the wild speculation point, I've seldom seen anything quite as fantastic as the post that started this thread. What earthly factual basis was there for it? What would drive someone to expend all that energy dreaming up a scenario like that out of virtually nothing but whole cloth? Damned if "bias" isn't what springs to my mind. And that impression is of course reinforced when I see the woman in the scenario being referred to as "girl".
The criminal law used to provide that no man could be convicted of a sexual assault on the word -- the sworn, cross-examined word -- of the complainant alone. Some of us obviously haven't moved out of that particular dark age just yet.
The trier of fact in a criminal court -- usually a jury -- hears the evidence and assesses the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony. They are instructed as to how to do that. They are also instructed as to the standard of proof that the evidence must meet before they may convict: beyond a reasonable doubt. If they -- the people who have heard and seen all the evidence, and observed the witnesses in person -- do not find the testimony of the complainant to be credible, they are unlikely to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The criminal and civil courts are merely microcosms of life in that respect. The stakes are higher than for many decisions of that kind that we must all make, and that's why there are rules for how the decision is to be made.
"Deciding whom to believe" is another way of saying "assessing credibility".
The credibility assessments made by the courts really aren't just whimsical coin-tossing exercises, and may not proceed from bias -- even though that's how we might assess the credibility of a used car seller in our private lives in a matter that
affects no one else.
Here is a nice (long) practical guide to how it's done, prepared for the members of federal administrative tribunals in Canada. I can only hope that reading it might be a humbling experience for anyone who feels perfectly entitled to have an opinion about the credibility of the complainant in this case when s/he knows pretty much squat about the circumstances or the complainant.
http://www.ccat-ctac.org/en/conferences/docs/conference_text.pdf Google's cached html version The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "credible" as meaning, "Capable of being believed; worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy."
There are certain things that the court (judge or jury) needs to consider in assessing credibility. Here's one list, from that text:
(a) the demeanour of the witness while testifying and the manner in which the witness testified;
(b) the character of the witness's testimony;
(c) the extent of the capacity of the witness to perceive, to recollect, or to communicate any matter about which he or she testifies;
(d) the extent of the witness's opportunity to perceive any matter about which he or she testifies;
(e) the witness's character for honesty or veracity or their opposites;
(f) the existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive;
(g) a statement previously made by the witness that is consistent with his or her statement at the hearing;
(h) a statement made by the witness that is inconsistent with any part of the witness's testimony at the hearing;
(i) the existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness;
(j) the attitude of the witness toward the action in which the witness testifies or toward the giving of the testimony; and
(k) any admission of untruthfulness the witness makes.
It matters not a whit whether you or I or he or she believes what either party to any court proceedings says. We do not have the information we need and that the court will have, and most of us are quite inadequately instructed in the assessment of credibility to enable us to properly assess the credibility of anyone we don't know who is talking about something we did not witness, unless what s/he says contradicts something else that we actually
know.
But we do make credibility assessments in our daily lives all the time, for our own purposes and according to our own private rules, whatever they are, in matters that do not affect other people's rights.
For instance, if I were to apply the factors in the list above, and perhaps especially factor (f), I might find someone who refers to an adult sexual assault complainant as "girl", and then produces one of the most stereotyped personas of a "girl" I have ever seen, not to be entirely credible.
But, not having all the information I'd need in order to make that assessment, let alone state it publicly, I don't.
When speaking, myself, I always remember that my credibility is one of my most valuable assets in this life, and take some pains, for instance, not to allow any bias I might have (as we all do) colour the judgments I express.
.