Believe it or not, it's possible to be suspected or even accused of something you didn't actually do, whether through a misunderstanding or otherwise. And factors such as ethnicity and personal associations can influence the chance of this occurring.
The more you say the more that can be twisted against you. "I'm not guilty." -> "Not guilty of what? We haven't accused you of anything. Why are you acting like you've been accused? What exactly are you not guilty of?" And so on.
The response with the smallest attack surface is "No comment."
So you wouldnt suggest that you should generally be able to know who your accuser is (the principle), but rather that is a standard we hold the process of whether or not some one can out you into a little box?
Thats coherent. I was originally thinking about this as a 'good for the goose, good for the gander' situation because the idea that you should generally speaking know who is accusing you and of what seems pretty reasonable.
As someone who has been falsely accused of a crime in the past, I'd just like to remind people that being charged with something does not make you guilty, it's an allegation. I know you know this,but society today seems to be treating allegations like convictions
If you're the one being accused, you have to worry about the accusation coloring other people's judgement of you. Most people really aren't logical creatures. People tend to not remember the source or veracity of things they know. So even if you're innocent, others may automatically assume you're a jerk.
reply