Ideally, you want a justice system that always punishes the guilty while never punishing the innocent. In practice however, it is impossible to do both. When the U.S. was a British colony, colonists would be accused of crimes pertaining to challenging the British throne, such as smuggling, tax evasion (avoiding the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts), sedition (criticizing the crown), rioting, black market trading, etc. and would not be given a fair chance to defend themselves from those accusations. After America gained independence, the Founding Fathers made sure to afford the accused a handful of anti-corruption protections under the 6th constitutional amendment (Bill of Rights, 1791).

Two of them being particularly relevant:

The right to a public trial

The right to confront one’s accuser and challenge their testimony

The idea of re-victimization is used to oppose due process, including the use of medical rape kits, recounting of victim and witness testimony before a court room, cross-examination, and the public transparency of criminal trials serve as some sort of humiliation ritual. The feminist prescription is that this process should be scrapped in favor of a model that streamlines the conviction of men without the need to examine evidence in an effort to coddle women’s feelings. But of course, feminists don’t want women to be jailed at a man’s word, because this isn’t about victims, it’s about female power.

This concept exists to give women the power to put men in prison using their words alone, under the assumption that false rape accusations aren’t common enough to warrant evidence-collection in the first place. At the same time however, “one poisonous M&M” is enough to treat all M&M’s as potentially poisonous.

See also: