Aziz Ansari Doesn't Pick Up On "Non-Verbal Cues" and Gets Treated Like A Rapist

[Cyberman]

Wouldn't matter anyway, whether or not it was assault. In these sorts of cases, usually the accusation is enough. Maybe not in the legal arena, but most definitely in the public one. Some years ago, a relative of mine was accused of sexual assault on minors. He denied it, the statements of the alleged victims were all over the place, forensic and other investigation came back negative, and one of the alleged victims even came out and gave details of why they were making the allegations (hint: compensation money). Yet my relative still served nine years after being coerced into pleading guilty by his own solicitor. His name is on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life.

But despite knowing all the context, there were people at the time - and still are - who said they don't care about all that and that he obviously must be guilty, because why else would the kids say such things? Why would the police have locked him up? Phrases like "no smoke without fire" were thrown about even by people who have known him for years.

Wow that's really shocking.

He was advised to plead guilty even when there was no evidence against him and the accuser admitted it was lies? Crazy. Just goes to show that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to apply once the witch hunt starts.

That's what I meant when I said that in these kinds of cases, the accusation is enough for a conviction; if only in the public mind. This whole thread is testament to that.

In my relative's case, he was basically pressured into a guilty plea in order to get a lighter sentence than if it had gone to trial and returned a guilty verdict, which happens far more than most people probably realise. That plus he didn't want the whole family to suffer a drawn-out court battle and the trial by gossip that comes with it. Put simply, there was far more going on than pleading guilty because he actually was guilty.