Are sex crimes so heinous that they shouldn't be subject to the presumption of innocence tradition in our legal system? (house of representatives, FBI)
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.
Saw a comment by a friend the other day, that I let slide because my position there isn't like it is here, that our system of "punishing" people for when they report crimes against them is wrong.
That seems like a reasonable enough, leaving out proper investigation procedures, conclusion, right?
Except there are so many situations in this world where one can find themselves with others saying "You should have known better." For example, in the gun carrying world, there is, "Now that you can carry a gun, don't go anyplace you wouldn't if you couldn't carry a gun.".
Perhaps, being an innocent babe in the woods is not entirely faultless.
You cant prove a negative.
The accused shoukd ALWAYS have a presumption of innocence. Its up to accuser to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by the accused. There is no way to do that if the crime was committed 30 yrs ago, and there is no evidence.
Yes I agree 100% of course.
However, in case of Kavanaugh, I don't think that the woman is really trying to accuse him of a crime as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. I guess she know that she will not have a case about a 30 year old crime with no evidence.
I think she is trying to derail his nomination for the Supreme court. I wonder where she was when he was appointed a Judge to the Court of Appeals. Why didn't she come out then? I suspect this because she would've not generated beneficial publicity from the Feminist circles as she did now. I bet she is hoping to get a book deal or a movie deal.
Personally, I am a moderate and usually vote with Democrats as you can see from some of my other posts. I don't like what Kavanaugh stands for but I don't want his nomination to be stopped due to some old story that has no way of being verified... I would love for his nomination to fail for the right reason, such as his record or ultra conservative convictions...
I think she is trying to derail his nomination for the Supreme court. I wonder where she was when he was appointed a Judge to the Court of Appeals. Why didn't she come out then?
...
Well, I keep up with the news pretty well. I can't name a single person who has ever been named to the Court Of Appeals. But a nomination to the Supreme Court is always front page news.
Well, I keep up with the news pretty well. I can't name a single person who has ever been named to the Court Of Appeals. But a nomination to the Supreme Court is always front page news.
But SHE claims to have followed his career and been afraid in the past so there's that...
But SHE claims to have followed his career and been afraid in the past so there's that...
But is her account accurate after 35 years? Memory is a strange thing. The fact that several of her supposed witnesses, a woman included, have publicly stated that they don't even remember being at the party, let alone the incident in question, raises yellow flags. So does the fact that she can't remember key facts such as where the party took place. And the second woman brought forward, someone with lots of ties to the Democratic political leadership, is even more dubious.
And I say that as a person who didn't vote for Trump and is uncomfortable with Kavanagh's judicial leanings. I say that as someone who would prefer he not be seated.
The problem here is that it used to be that people didn't believe someone because of who they were. Now there's automatic credulity based on who that person is. We have people clamoring to set aside the rules of evidence aside based on political considerations and identity politics.
Saying that you believe someone because she is a woman is the same thing as saying you believe someone because she is white. Or disbelieving someone because he is black. Because one's past experience with sexual harassment or the experience of others has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of one person in one particular case. We are supposed to be better than this.
To me, anyone who postures with an "I believe her" as opposed to "Well, let's hear what she has to say," is really opening Pandora's Box. When accusations without proof become perfectly legitimate fodder in the nomination process, then I don't like where it is going. The list of people who have been punished in the court of public opinion and in the criminal justice system because of a false accusation is long. It's the most powerful argument against a death penalty. Yet those who would go to the mat against capital punishment are suddenly willing to slough off their convictions for the sake of political convenience.
One of the most alarming things about today's political culture is that facts don't seem to matter to anyone any more. You see it all the time on Facebook, where people will share memes that either take a small fact and blow it utterly out of context or, worse, just make things up whole cloth. The left and the right are both equally guilty of this. All that matters to them are likes and shares. It's the logical result you get when politics becomes blood sport.
Yet, at the end of the day, truth is the only thing that matters.
Remember this: If this tactic works to deny the approval of a candidate you don't like, it can also be used to deny the approval of a candidate you do like.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 09-26-2018 at 07:09 AM..
But is her account accurate after 35 years? Memory is a strange thing. The fact that several of her supposed witnesses, a woman included, have publicly stated that they don't even remember being at the party, let alone the incident in question, raises yellow flags. So does the fact that she can't remember key facts such as where the party took place. And the second woman brought forward, someone with lots of ties to the Democratic political leadership, is even more dubious.
And I say that as a person who didn't vote for Trump and is uncomfortable with Kavanagh's judicial leanings. I say that as someone who would prefer he not be seated.
The problem here is that it used to be that people didn't believe someone because of who they were. Now there's automatic credulity based on who that person is. We have people clamoring to set aside the rules of evidence aside based on political considerations and identity politics.
Saying that you believe someone because she is a woman is the same thing as saying you believe someone because she is white. Or disbelieving someone because he is black. Because one's past experience with sexual harassment or the experience of others has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of one person in one particular case. We are supposed to be better than this.
To me, anyone who postures with an "I believe her" as opposed to "Well, let's hear what she has to say," is really opening Pandora's Box. When accusations without proof become perfectly legitimate fodder in the nomination process, then I don't like where it is going. The list of people who have been punished in the court of public opinion and in the criminal justice system because of a false accusation is long. It's the most powerful argument against a death penalty. Yet those who would go to the mat against capital punishment are suddenly willing to slough off their convictions for the sake of political convenience.
One of the most alarming things about today's political culture is that facts don't seem to matter to anyone any more. You see it all the time on Facebook, where people will share memes that either take a small fact and blow it utterly out of context or, worse, just make things up whole cloth. The left and the right are both equally guilty of this. All that matters to them are likes and shares. It's the logical result you get when politics becomes blood sport.
Yet, at the end of the day, truth is the only thing that matters.
Remember this: If this tactic works to deny the approval of a candidate you don't like, it can also be used to deny the approval of a candidate you do like.
You make good points.
However, some of what you're saying is exactly why so many of us believe that the FBI should investigate this. Clear it up. If he passes with flying colors, fine. If he crashes, fine.
But I disagree that we have to reject the court of popular opinion. When half of America's population says thumbs down, maybe we ought to listen.
And this had wringing because he's under stress. If any candidate accepts a nomination expecting to breeze through in this political environment, then they're not mentally fit for the job to begin with. You know the old saying -- if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It applies here.
This man has no inherent right to a seat on the Supreme Court. He is a job applicant. And after being a person who spent twenty years hiring teachers...you look at all the resumes, you ask ALL the pertinent questions, and then you pick the best candidate. And I don't believe that in a nation of 326 million people that he is the only man or woman who is right for the SC. Is there no conservative man or woman who can gain the confidence of a clear majority of Americans? Is there not conservative man or woman who had led an exemplary life. If not, there's something wrong with conservatism.
However, some of what you're saying is exactly why so many of us believe that the FBI should investigate this. Clear it up. If he passes with flying colors, fine. If he crashes, fine.
But I disagree that we have to reject the court of popular opinion. When half of America's population says thumbs down, maybe we ought to listen.
And this had wringing because he's under stress. If any candidate accepts a nomination expecting to breeze through in this political environment, then they're not mentally fit for the job to begin with. You know the old saying -- if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It applies here.
This man has no inherent right to a seat on the Supreme Court. He is a job applicant. And after being a person who spent twenty years hiring teachers...you look at all the resumes, you ask ALL the pertinent questions, and then you pick the best candidate. And I don't believe that in a nation of 326 million people that he is the only man or woman who is right for the SC. Is there no conservative man or woman who can gain the confidence of a clear majority of Americans? Is there not conservative man or woman who had led an exemplary life. If not, there's something wrong with conservatism.
Okay, but if this is the case, then here's what happens next: Basically anyone, anywhere, of any party affiliation seeking any position in government that requires confirmation is basically hostage to any whipped up charge, no matter how flimsy (Or non-existent) it might be. Because, hey, all you need is 50.1% of the country not liking the guy based on...what? Badly-remembered recollection of what happened 35 years ago, one where the details are cloudy and named witnesses have no recollection? I mean, the Democratic Party had Ford's letter for two months before making it public. That's all the time in the world to gin up a campaign against the guy and launch it at the eleventh hour. Or, more to the point, find some corroboration to Ford's story.
You're right that he has no inherent right to the seat. But that's not the same thing as giving every innuendo or half-baked attack credence. When I dated in my single life, I'm awfully damned sure that I treated every woman with respect. I was raised in a family where punctilious manners were drilled into me. I certainly did not hold a girl down and put my hand over her mouth while I felt her up. And when I broke up with someone, or she broke up with me, in my heart of hearts it took place in a mature way, at least by the standards of teenagers or twenty-somethings. But am I absolutely sure that some girl I made out with when I was seventeen could, with the memory festering over several decades, find my behavior beyond reproach? No. I like to think otherwise. But, as I said earlier, memory is a tricky thing.
The other thing? You mention the stakes involved. The stakes are certainly higher than a person interviewing for a middle-level manager position somewhere. But it also means that the stakes are high for those who oppose Kavanagh, not just those who support him. Those opposing him have made as much clear. I mean, spend a few hours on Facebook looking at the political memes that are either a) taking a minor fact about someone and blowing it completely out of context or b) making things up whole cloth. And the people creating these memes are acting at the behest of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
In other words, you are dealing with politicos who have little or no fealty of truth. To them, it's just business. Otherwise, there would be a similar hue and cry about Keith Ellison, for whom there evidently is some documentation. So it's not much of a leap of the imagination to think that perhaps either Ford's account has been exaggerated or made up whole cloth in order to suit a larger political purpose. Not because I necessarily believe that of her, but because I know it could happen. It has happened in the past. Why not now? So there is absolutely a burden of proof, if for no other reason than the future nomination of people of both parties. Kavanaugh was cruising towards nomination before this bombshell hit. Why now? Why not two months ago?
And, once again, I don't support Trump, the Republican Party, or the Conservative movement. But I see where this leads. Unless there is substantive proof, rather than accusations without any tangible backup, I have to presume that Kavanaugh is not guilty.
Okay, but if this is the case, then here's what happens next: Basically anyone, anywhere, of any party affiliation seeking any position in government that requires confirmation is basically hostage to any whipped up charge, no matter how flimsy (Or non-existent) it might be. Because, hey, all you need is 50.1% of the country not liking the guy based on...what? Badly-remembered recollection of what happened 35 years ago, one where the details are cloudy and named witnesses have no recollection? I mean, the Democratic Party had Ford's letter for two months before making it public. That's all the time in the world to gin up a campaign against the guy and launch it at the eleventh hour. Or, more to the point, find some corroboration to Ford's story.
...
The other thing? You mention the stakes involved. The stakes are certainly higher than a person interviewing for a middle-level manager position somewhere. But it also means that the stakes are high for those who oppose Kavanagh, not just those who support him. Those opposing him have made as much clear. I mean, spend a few hours on Facebook looking at the political memes that are either a) taking a minor fact about someone and blowing it completely out of context or b) making things up whole cloth. And the people creating these memes are acting at the behest of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
In other words, you are dealing with politicos who have little or no fealty of truth. To them, it's just business. Otherwise, there would be a similar hue and cry about Keith Ellison, for whom there evidently is some documentation. So it's not much of a leap of the imagination to think that perhaps either Ford's account has been exaggerated or made up whole cloth in order to suit a larger political purpose. Not because I necessarily believe that of her, but because I know it could happen. It has happened in the past. Why not now? So there is absolutely a burden of proof, if for no other reason than the future nomination of people of both parties. Kavanaugh was cruising towards nomination before this bombshell hit. Why now? Why not two months ago?
And, once again, I don't support Trump, the Republican Party, or the Conservative movement. But I see where this leads. Unless there is substantive proof, rather than accusations without any tangible backup, I have to presume that Kavanaugh is not guilty.
You seem to be ignoring that in addition to "paying attention" to the court of public opinion -- or don't think that citizen opinion is of any importance in choosing who runs our country -- I have advocated that the FBI should investigate the allegations. Most Americans would be reasonably content to drop their objections on these issues should the FBI investigate the situation and find no grounds for the allegations.
I'm also all for going after Ellison (and Donald Trump, btw) for sexual misconduct. However, there's a difference between Kavanaugh and Ellison. Kavanaugh will be 1 of 9 votes on one equal branch of government. Ellison is 1 vote out of 535 votes in another equal branch of government. Kavanaugh's role on the supreme court is for life (potentially 30 or more years), Ellison's role in Congress lasts 2 years.
You're worrying about burden of proof when you are sticking up for the Republicans who refuse to let the FBI investigate.
You "don't support Trump, the Republican Party, or the Conservative movement". I'd never know it by what you write.
You seem to be ignoring that in addition to "paying attention" to the court of public opinion -- or don't think that citizen opinion is of any importance in choosing who runs our country -- I have advocated that the FBI should investigate the allegations. Most Americans would be reasonably content to drop their objections on these issues should the FBI investigate the situation and find no grounds for the allegations.
I'm also all for going after Ellison (and Donald Trump, btw) for sexual misconduct. However, there's a difference between Kavanaugh and Ellison. Kavanaugh will be 1 of 9 votes on one equal branch of government. Ellison is 1 vote out of 535 votes in another equal branch of government. Kavanaugh's role on the supreme court is for life (potentially 30 or more years), Ellison's role in Congress lasts 2 years.
You're worrying about burden of proof when you are sticking up for the Republicans who refuse to let the FBI investigate.
You "don't support Trump, the Republican Party, or the Conservative movement". I'd never know it by what you write.
Only if one operates in the world of mindless binary politics, where anything that doesn't 100% support one's party automatically supports the other one. In the real world, however, people can have nuanced views that don't just parrot an apparatchik's bullet points. Call me a horrified centrist because I don't believe the ends justify the means. Maybe you do, but I don't. Mueller's investigation? I'm all for it because there are actual loose ends to investigate, e-mails, transfers of cash, informants, and a host of other concrete building blocks for a case.
Which leads to the FBI question, which I consider absurd. What exactly would they look into? How would they even begin? I mean, let's start out with the unreliable set of recollections on the part of Christine Ford:
1) She's not sure in which house the alleged incident took place, nor the street, nor the year or the month. She's not sure how old she was at the time of the alleged incident.
2) There are no witnesses.
3) The four people she identified being at the party, including her longtime friend, deny any knowledge of the party. I'm pretty sure that, 35 years later, they're not denying it to stay out of hot water with their parents. Her friend Leland Keyser claims to have never met Kavanaugh or being at any party where he might have been present.
4) She originally claimed that she spoke with two friends immediately after the event, but neither friend has any recollection of that conversation.
Seriously. With this sketchy statement, riddled with holes, are you actually supporting the notion that the nation's law enforcement agency swing into action to track down and interview the attendees of a teenager's party 35 years ago? Especially a party that the supposed witnesses don't even remember attending? Do you remember parties when you were in high school? If you are over the age of 50, can you remember what happened at a party that long ago? Can you remember who came, who said what, and who did what? I mean, hell, I'm not much of a drinker and I can't remember what happened on many social occasions a year ago, let alone thirty-five. After a while, unless you're a complete introvert who only gets out once every five years, they tend to run together.
I mean, the questions would border on satire if it weren't so serious. "Ma'am, was the basement pine-paneled? Can you describe exactly who got wasted? What did Mindy say that got Joe so freaked out? Who hurled in the Jones' potted plant out on the patio? Do you remember the name of Lucy's weird stoner friend, SweetPea, the one in the Grateful Dead shirt? Sir, how blotto were you? How many bong hits were you into at that point?" The one time I threw a party when I was a junior, it was all just a daze to me. The only thing I really remember was some girl throwing up in the kitchen garbage can and my waking up the next morning thinking, "Oh, hell, I've got to clean all this up before my parents get home tonight." That and running a carpet cleaner while nursing a three-alarm hangover. Never again.
How exactly would this work? And would any of their findings be anywhere close to reliable? Exactly what kind of investigation could these guys even begin to organize? Unlike Mueller, calling for an investigation in this circumstance isn't a quest for truth. It's a fantasy at its most charitable, a stalling tactic at its most cynical.
And, once again, the obvious question is this: If the Democrats had actually been so concerned about these charges, if they had actually been serious about learning the truth, they would have called for an investigation two months ago, rather than a handful of days before the vote. Anybody with the least bit of objectivity would understand that.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 09-26-2018 at 05:06 PM..
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.
