The Presumption of Guilt The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down.

The Presumption of Guilt. The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down…

[T]he Democratic standard for sexual-assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made. The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman. The burden is on Mr. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the Court...

This turns American justice and due process upside down. The core tenet of Anglo-American law is that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the accusation. An accuser can’t doom someone’s freedom or career merely by making a charge...Otherwise we have a Jacobin system of justice in which “J’accuse” becomes the standard and anyone can be ruined on a whim or a vendetta...

Another core tenet of due process is that an accusation isn’t any more or less credible because of the gender, race, religion or ethnicity of who makes it. A woman can lie, as the Duke lacrosse players will tell you...

A third tenet of due process is the right to cross-examine an accuser. The point is to test an accuser’s facts and credibility, which is why we have an adversarial system...

We don’t doubt that Ms. Ford believes what she claims. But the set of facts she currently provides wouldn’t pass even the “preponderance of evidence”—or 50.01% evidence of guilt—test that prevails today on college campuses. If this is the extent of her evidence and it is allowed to defeat a Supreme Court nominee, a charge of sexual assault will become a killer political weapon regardless of facts. And the new American standard of due process will be the presumption of guilt.

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prover they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual rights.

Click to expand...

Tangmo said:

Accusations against Catholic priests molesting boys and girls 30 years ago and 20 years ago get investigated. Conservatives believe adults who as boys or girls were molested. Investigations are held to find the facts. However, Conservatives reject adult women coming forward years later to expose a good ol' boy Conservative teenage desperado and preppie golden boy. I didn't see any of this included in the WSJ editorial by its Conservative editorial board. The reason is that Conservatives conserve their most precious values, attitudes, mores. Rape and attempted rape are clearly at or near the top of the Conservative list of things to conserve.

Not.

We need FBI to investigate.

Click to expand...

Tangmo said:

Accusations against Catholic priests molesting boys and girls 30 years ago and 20 years ago get investigated. Conservatives believe adults who as boys or girls were molested. Investigations are held to find the facts. However, Conservatives reject adult women coming forward years later to expose a good ol' boy Conservative teenage desperado and preppie golden boy. I didn't see any of this included in the WSJ editorial by its Conservative editorial board. The reason is that Conservatives conserve their most precious values, attitudes, mores. Rape and attempted rape are clearly at or near the top of the Conservative list of things to conserve.

Not.

We need FBI to investigate.

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

Read for comprehension instead of knee-jerk responses.

LOCAL law enforcement investigates violation of State crimes. The FBI investigates Federal crimes.

They do background checks yes, but unlike Anita Hill's case Ms. Blasely Ford has not provided sufficient information for the FBI to do a "background check" process.

This has been pointed out in thread after thread. Meanwhile this is a Red Herring response, deflecting from the OP.

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

When 10 altar boys come out and blame the same priest there's evidence. When one woman blames one guy and NOBODY else corroborates the story and 6 FBI background investigations didn't turn up the kind of behavior involved the accusation is little more than spitting in the wind.

Click to expand...

Tangmo said:

One woman is a hundred thousand women since Kavanaugh the desperado.

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

Great, now Kavanaugh is Wilt Chamberlain.:doh

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

I mean honestly who among us hasn’t almost raped someone? Boys will be boys.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Dear WSJ:

This isn’t a criminal trial you dumb ****s

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

I mean honestly who among us hasn’t almost raped someone? Boys will be boys.

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

He's being confirmed for the highest judicial position in the world. He's not being sent to prison, right?

Click to expand...

ludin said:

it doesn't matter it is no up to him to prove his innocence he is already innocent.
it is up to her to prove him guilty. it doesn't matter what his position is or is going to be.

you don't get to scream "witch" and make that person a witch without evidence.

Click to expand...

ludin said:

It doesn't have to be a criminal trial.
the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim.

it is not the job of the accused to prove themselves innocent.
it is the job of the accuser to prove that.

it doesn't matter if it is in a trial or a baseless accusation.

that is a founding principle of our society and our country.

the morbid and frankly appalling behavior that you can simply accuse someone of something and they are guilty of it without
you being able to support it is disgusting and no one should ever support said ideology.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

There’s no burden of proof. This is a job interview. If 51 senators vote no because they don’t like his hair, that’s the standard.

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

The following was published by the Editorial Board (not an independent writer) of the Wall Street Journal on 09/23/18.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presumption-of-guilt-1537570627

KUDOS to the Wall Street Journal! :applaud

Several of us (some, actual lawyers) have been trying to explain this point over and over to no avial. Every point is counter-argued by supporter's of the "believe the victim" philosophy as "undermining this poor woman's valiant stand against a very bad man for his very bad thing!"

The WSJ is correct, Kavaunaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Ms. Ford has the obligation of proving her assertions and not having them assumed true simply because "she is a woman who came forward."

The WSJ is also correct in that her stated evidence does not even rise to the level of proving the lesser civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is essentially just her word against his coupled with (so far) the denials of three of her alleged witnesses.

The Democrats have weaponized "sex" for their own purposes, starting back with the Bork hearings. Again as the WSJ states, what kind of society would we be living in where a simple allegation of sexual misconduct is automatically believed and the accused has to figure out how to prove they did NOT do it?

Only those who have no idea how hard it is to prove a negative (essentially one would need an iron-clad alibi showing they could not have been present at the time and place alleged) would rationally support this kind of standard.

Stop pushing this unjust kangaroo court of public opinion ideology...it can and will bite you and/or yours' in the posterior at some point in the not too distant future.

Instead, stand by the presumption of innocence. If the facts show the person is guilty, then well and good, that's the way it is supposed to work to protect everyone's individual liberty.

Click to expand...

ludin said:

sure there is. it doesn't matter 1 iota if it is a job interview. he still doesn't have to prove himself innocent.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

I didn’t say he needs to prove himself innocent. I said there’s no requirement to prove him guilty. It’s a job interview, not a trial. If 51 senators say “better safe than sorry,” then that’s it. If 51 senators say “I don’t like his nose,” then that’s it.

Click to expand...