Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not when it comes to sex crimes. To assume the accused is innocent is to victimize the accuser all over again. Remember we're not dealing with logic here.
In all crimes. Period.
And since most sex crimes only have 2 witnesses, and it's a "he said, she said" situation, it is especially important that we keep that in mind.
So unless something changes in the next 48 hours, Catherine Ford will testify under oath that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh.
Ford has also requested that the republican-led committee call for Mark Judge to testify who she alleges was in the room, but republicans have denied that request.
Ford has also requested the FBI formally investigate. The republican on the committee have denied that request.
The president could, at any time, order an FBI investigation. Trump has not and will not.
I hope all American voters are paying attention to this. The GOP is telling us all that getting a conservative judge appointed before midterms is more important than getting to the bottom of what really happened that night Ford alleges Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
You won't play what? The game of giving people their Constitutional rights?
2% is an intolerably high number of false accusations. That means 1 out of 50 people in jail would be innocent, if we just took the accuser's word and didn't demand evidence. It would be 4 out 50 at 8%. The number is a bad number already, without inflation. You and I both know the number is higher than 2-8%.
Having had the opportunity to read the source of that Cambridge Law Journal report citation that "41% of rape reports are false accusations" (thank you, subscription to ProQuest), it is noted that: "This figure combines cases that the police designated as false and those in which the complainant said the allegation was false."
They are. But far more often, guilty sex offenders deny they assaulted the victim. And most sexual assaults don't take place in front of witnesses for obvious reasons.
Agreed. True accusations outnumber false accusations. But even 2-8% of false accusations, the low estimate, is a worrisome number. We can't railroad 2-8 people out of 100 because our cause is just.
The justice system has two choices, both with unpleasant consequences. A) Believe accusers, and don't require evidence. The unpleasant consequence here is many innocent people are imprisoned. B) Presume innocence, and require proof. The unpleasant consequence here is that bad guys sometimes get away. We can't prove they did what they did.
Sometimes life gives you two bad choices. Go to the dentist, who terrifies you, or live with the pain of a rotten tooth. No third alternative, where you don't go to the dentist, but your tooth is magically fixed. Our system of justice made a choice between two problematic alternatives. We went with B, which requires proof of guilt. Not a perfect system, but better than A.
oh, we knew this is a tawdry, unsupported smear campaign from the beginning. There can be 400 and it will not change the starting fact. Lies, purely and simple.
So true. To be expected from the party that believes that the end justifies the means, however.
It is a miscarriage of justice to both the accused and even the accuser to not presume innocence from the start. I will never agree with someone who believes that presumption of innocence should have a pass for certain crimes. Never. It's not right and one of the basic tenets of our judicial system.
It’s terrifying what these people are proposing. They might as well just do away with the justice system entirely and create gulags. That’s pretty much what they seem to want.
10 Serious Problems With New Accusations Against Kavanaugh
Highlight:
Quote:
6. A woman who claims she was "best friends" with Ramirez says Ramirez never mentioned the story and initially said her friend's accusations against Kavanaugh might be "politically motivated."
Buried nearly 1,700 words into the New Yorker piece, the report states:
6. The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.
Feel free to read all 10, and notice how far down in the New Yorker article you have to go to actually get the truth.
I'm all for presumption of innocent. Not sure any of this happened -- but a 'hearing' by a heavily biased committee is not the way to get to the truth.
It’s terrifying what these people are proposing. They might as well just do away with the justice system entirely and create gulags. That’s pretty much what they seem to want.
Concur and I find it extremely troubling. I cannot understand how anyone can support these kinds of behaviors. They're out of 17th century Salem with these tactics. Should they next drown Kavanaugh to see if he's innocent or not? Or just set him on fire and see if he burns?
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,608 posts, read 12,543,921 times
Reputation: 10479
Quote:
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, according to someone working for his confirmation.
The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.
It's just his calendar, but it's far more evidence than either accuser has provided.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
