I chose sex crime because those are both common and they put a pretty sizeable hole in your stance,
People don't go to me to determine things on sex crimes. I'm not a police officer, a lawyer, or the dean of a school. Ergo it's not common to my day to day life. Furthermore I find it a bit skeevy to not only instantly jump to the most extreme circumstances of something but to limit the discussion of it. It'd be like having a discussion on inflation and going straight to Zimbabwe. How many rape cases a day are you presented with? If it's a lot then the reason would lie in you being an outlier or being placed in special circumstances.
because giving benefit if doubt to one side is taking it from the other. You choose to say "I don't take sides"...but you give the accused benefit of the doubt.
If it's at the point where you are involved in the rape case then you would either be connected to it or it'd be high profile. In the former the answer to that would vary depending on the role to the case. If it's the latter you can only evaluate based on information brought to the public. The accusation would be one. For the sake of the scenario I'll pretend I'm a juror so I'll have access to all the proper information and assume no bias. I'd have to evaluate based on stipulations like these.
Is there any DNA evidence? If yes what else could be the reason for it being there? If no why is it not there?
Does the story hold up? Does the defendant alibi make sense? Does the timeline lead to this situation being plausible?
How credible is the character of everyone involved? Has either perjured in court before? Is there a history of severe mental instability or similar such factors that could be a factor in creating this case?
If these parameters are met on either side I make my verdict but until then I can't assume the accuser to be a liar or the defendent to be a rapist or I'm dishonouring the role as a juror. Think of it like Schrodinger's guilt. Of course that's subject to change as the information is digestes.
Of course that has to do with being in court. If I have no involvement in the case I wouldn't be involved. I'm not one of those reddit gender wars types where I look out for some rape case to cast my stone in to show the feminazis or red pilled mras that they are ruining society. I find that excercise childish and non conductive.
That's the problem with blanket declarations.
This last statement seems like this whole discussion was built on pedantry which I really hope isn't the case.