grapefruit / 4862 posts
I may be biased because, like many of you, I found him to be creepy. I think it's hard to think there isn't at least some truth to Dylan's allegations when you consider that he married his adopted daughter. I'm adopted and when people say "oh she's adopted!" that makes me grossed out because my family is MY FAMILY. Period, the end.
I know Woody's camp seems to be pushing that Mia made this up to get back at Woody and drilled it into Dylan to the point where SHE believed it. I know it's possible to make a child believe something that never happened, but I think that's far less plausable than Woody having actually done what she claimed. So I'm inclined to believe Dylan. I would boycott Woody Allen movies but I've never seen one, so I'll just continue that.
Also- something interesting I thought of. When people say "he wasn't convicted!" - neither was, say, OJ Simpson. Or Casey Anthony. Yet they are CERTAINLY guilty based on public opinion. Wonder why that's not the case here? I'd say because of his celebrity but OJ was a celebrity and still his "innocent" verdict is a running joke.
GOLD / pineapple / 12662 posts
@mrbee: preponderance of the evidence (generally regarded as a 51% probability) is a civil standard, not a criminal standard. Generally, for felony child abuse, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
admin / wonderful grape / 20724 posts
@MsLipGloss: it's my own personal standard of proof though. I'm not talking about a real court.
@nana87: @mrbee: There are no judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion because it's not a *court*. I don't like what that quote implies, both for future victims who decide to come forward or for people who will someday be accused of committing a crime (because none of us have any control over what we are accused of doing, no matter how baseless or absurd the allegations may in fact be!). The statement implies that our legal system provides too much *shelter* for an accused and not enough for a victim, and that it [the system] is incapable of getting the job done. I have met several people who all held that opinion until they were personally accused of something. The system is not perfect by any means, but our standards of proof are what they are for a good reason.
@mrbee: That's a fairly light standard for such serious allegations. I realize that proving abuse can be incredibly difficult, but it also shouldn't be easier to prosecute someone because they are accused of a heinous crime (because the stakes are much much higher). If you were to remove the celebrity surrounding this case, and instead the accused was a friend/colleague of yours, would you still apply your personal standard of PoE to determine your friend's guilt/innocence?
ETA: This is not intended to be antagonistic, truly. Just food for thought with regard to a propensity to mold facts to fit an assumption based on (our mutually held!) moral disgust for such crimes.
cantaloupe / 6171 posts
@MsLipGloss: I agree in general about what you say about the legal system in general--but the context of the quote is not actually about the legal system at all (which as you say is about public opinion): the article's argument is that since the statute of limitations has ended, what's at stake in all this are individual moviegoers' decisions of whether to watch WA films and actors/writers/producers/etc individual decisions of whether to work with him. My point in posting the article and the quote was that whether Allen is or isn't guilty, I am going to make an individual choice not to watch his movies, and I think Farrow deserves compassion
More importantly though, I think the quote isn't making an argument so much about legal standards in actual courts, which I agree shouldn't change, but the serious problem in our culture of blaming the victim in these cases. Like, there was the recent scandal with this year's Heisman trophy winner--he was accused of rape and the police so completely botched the investigation that the case was never brought to trial. Or the Steubenville cases where public opinion demonized the girl and empathized with the boys who actually were found guilty. Or there was a similar case, I think in Missouri (don't have time to look it up...). Or recently, there has been a lot in the press about how colleges and universities badly handle charges of rape on campuses. I don't think it's a straight-forward, black and white issue, and I thought the quote was interesting because it brought the gray areas to light, for me at least.
@nana87: I agree that very few things are black and white. But for every case/investigation you can point to where there was a botched investigation or poor follow through for rape/abuse victims, I could point to an equal if not greater number of cases where allegations were zealously pursued and the wrong lives were destroyed in the process. These are the expected casualties of our legal system. It certainly beats the alternative, however imperfect it may be.
Quotes such as this, however, only serve to create expectations that allegations must be accepted without question or without hesitation, lest we fall into the *victim shaming* category. I don't deny that that has happened in the past, and likely far too often. But the fact that we have an adversarial system and that defendants are forced to defend themselves against allegations means that the victim will always be, to some degree, questioned and doubted, because that is the cornerstone of our legal system . . . innocent until proven guilty. Encouraging the idea that a victim should never be questioned or doubted creates an impossible situation . . . or by challenging allegations and defending against allegations--the natural process in a criminal case--that in so doing, a victim is automatically shamed, can only serve to debase our judicial process/system.
<< The statement implies that our legal system provides too much *shelter* for an accused and not enough for a victim, and that it [the system] is incapable of getting the job done. I have met several people who all held that opinion until they were personally accused of something. The system is not perfect by any means, but our standards of proof are what they are for a good reason. >>
I agree... that's what I was attempting to convey here: "I think everyone deserves judicial standards in any court! That's one of the foundations of our justice system."
<< If you were to remove the celebrity surrounding this case, and instead the accused was a friend/colleague of yours, would you still apply your personal standard of PoE to determine your friend's guilt/innocence? >>
I firmly believe that before someone's liberty is taken away by the state, that the state should have to prove their case against a very strong standard.
If it's just me and my friend though, then I don't have the power to determine his formal guilt or innocence. But course I am free to use my own standard in making decisions that affect me or my family. I don't know if Woody Allen would be held guilty in a court of law (even if the statute hadn't run out), but I sure as heck am not going to leave him alone with my kids!
@mrbee: I agree - I wouldn't leave him alone with my kiddo either!
@MsLipGloss: I don't really get what you were getting at then... I posted something supporting safeguards in our legal system, and you replied, "I realize that proving abuse can be incredibly difficult, but it also shouldn't be easier to prosecute someone because they are accused of a heinous crime (because the stakes are much much higher)."
But I didn't suggest that... not sure if you thought I was suggesting that I lower the standard at a criminal trial? Because all I meant is that I don't want to watch his films any more.
@mrbee: It was your use of the phrase *preponderance of the evidence* . . . which is a much lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps you meant *totality of the circumstances* as a reference to the publicly available information as opposed to a burden of proof the prosecution would need to satisfy in order to secure a conviction.
honeydew / 7589 posts
I'm bothered by the "is she telling the truth or isn't she" discussion. Rage Against the Minivan put my feelings into words very well. You can read the whole (excellent) post here - http://www.rageagainsttheminivan.com/2014/02/on-woody-allen-dylan-farrow-and.html?m=1
Here is an excerpt:
"Sexual abuse is a profound trauma for a child that can have far-reaching psychological ramifications. It is one of the most difficult and damaging events that can occur to a child. As a therapist, the revelation of sexual abuse requires compassion and concern. It is a gross violation and it produces overwhelming shame. Many women (or men) who have been sexually abused will never share their stories, choosing to bear this secret alone. It is quite rare for someone to lie about sexual abuse. It is also quite difficult for people to talk about. Therefore, when someone discloses a history of sexual abuse, it should be taken seriously.
Now, let’s go over the valid reasons to accuse someone of lying as they report their sexual abuse history:
Q: Is it okay to assume a person is lying because the perpetrator seems really nice?
Q: What if the perpetrator is really talented?
Q: What if the victim has a history of drug use?
A. Still not okay. In fact, sexual abuse and later drug abuse are correlated.
Q: Okay, what if the victim seems kind of unstable or histrionic?
Q: What if the victim’s mom seems prone to drama?
Q: What if the victim’s mom got a divorce?
A: Still no
Q: What if I read a blog post by someone who knew them?
Q: What if someone on facebook convinced me it’s not true?
Q: What if I really don’t want it to be true because it makes me uncomfortable?
In review, IT’S NEVER OKAY TO QUESTION SOMEONE’S ACCOUNT OF SEXUAL ABUSE unless you are the accused or representing the accused in a court of law. For everyone else, it’s not of our business, and publicly speculating that it’s a lie is perpetuating the rape culture that tells women that they should stay silent. Or worse, that it’s up for debate if they come forward.
Wondering if Dylan Farrow is telling the truth? It doesn’t matter. It’s not our place to question her story."
@kjpugs: I absolutely agree - the "but she's adopted so its ok" argument is sick on so many levels.
papaya / 10473 posts
@Arden: YES. Thank you!
cherry / 137 posts
I think the problem with this "court of public opinion" is that there are many misunderstood pieces of information that people are taking as fact.
I read the article Yerpie110 posted and it's very interesting. The fact is, Soon Yi was never Woody Allen's adopted daughter. He didn't live with her or help raise her. He wasn't even a father figure to her. She was Mia Farrow and Andre Previn's adopted daughter. I think it's still wrong that Wood Allen married his girlfriend's daughter but he didn't marry his own daughter. So he didn't commit incest, he was just a major a-hole.
I also thought Moses Farrow's (Mia and Woody's other son) comments are very interesting.
The bottom line is that none of us really know all of the facts. We know sensationalized bits and pieces that we've formed ill informed opinions on.
You must login / Register to post
see more leaders...
No members yet for today
Ask for Help
Make a Suggestion
Frequently Asked Questions
Most Viewed Posts
Postpartum Care Essentials
Sensory Play Activities
Starting Solids Gear
Transitioning to Toddler Bed
Who We Are
About the Bloggers
About the Hostesses
Apply to Blog
Apply to Hostess
Submit a Guest Blog
How We Make Money