Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[bennyboy]

So I think the conclusion is that testimony in and of itself is not evidence. Because you believe the testimony of these women not simply because they made allegations but for more than that.

Yes, but having reasons for accepting the testimony beyond the testimony in and of itself requires that I make judgement calls and subjective evaluations of factors such as source and witness credibility, the personal/professional history of the accused, and my overall level of credulity for the accusation itself, taking context into account.  The testimony alone isn't evidence, but neither are these other reasons that I have concluded support it.  Are they?

There's real danger here, on both sides.  There is a possibility that you accept testimony from a woman, and then charge a man with a crime he never committed.  There's also a possibility that you refuse to accept testimony from a woman, and then a man is never charged with a crime he definitely committed.

Does the seriousness of the crime determine the degree to which it should be considered without good evidence?  In colleges, the answer is very clearly yes-- if a girl accuses a boy of sexual misconduct, he's likely in for a world of pain.  If she can talk two friends into supporting her-- he may be fucked.  The same goes for teachers.

But the former state was no better, when women who were brave enough to stand up and be heard would be asked for evidence, or asked about their motivations, or whether they were leading the guy on.

tbh I don't have an answer for this.  It really seems that there's no right position here.