Author Topic: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings-Congrats Justice Kavanaugh  (Read 48928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #750 on: September 24, 2018, 10:10:27 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4314
  • Tommy Points: 359
Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

Interesting take.  So in the case of a woman who alleges sexual misconduct, if she doesn't have an airtight case, it shouldn't matter?  In judging if I think Kavanaugh is lying in a he said she said situation, I have to pick one or the other.  I choose based on the preponderance of the evidence.  Someone is lying, that we know, but it is impossible to "prove" which one is lying.  You are choosing to believe that Ford is lying.  You can't prove she is lying.

I understand your point that to some extent, I am using my belief that Kavanaugh did something to decide that he should not be a Supreme Court judge.  That actually isn't the case.  It is that he is lying about what he did, not what he may have done.  One accuser and he would have made it through.  Multiple accusers and you have exponentially more preponderance.

If republicans want to get to the bottom of this, they can.  The FBI would help.  They still might not be able to prove anything regarding criminal activity but lies would get exposed is my guess.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #751 on: September 24, 2018, 10:20:03 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11145
  • Tommy Points: 1312
Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

Interesting take.  So in the case of a woman who alleges sexual misconduct, if she doesn't have an airtight case, it shouldn't matter?  In judging if I think Kavanaugh is lying in a he said she said situation, I have to pick one or the other.  I choose based on the preponderance of the evidence.  Someone is lying, that we know, but it is impossible to "prove" which one is lying.  You are choosing to believe that Ford is lying.  You can't prove she is lying.

I understand your point that to some extent, I am using my belief that Kavanaugh did something to decide that he should not be a Supreme Court judge.  That actually isn't the case.  It is that he is lying about what he did, not what he may have done.  One accuser and he would have made it through.  Multiple accusers and you have exponentially more preponderance.

If republicans want to get to the bottom of this, they can.  The FBI would help.  They still might not be able to prove anything regarding criminal activity but lies would get exposed is my guess.

That's the thing, one does not have to choose to believe one or the other.  One can learn to accept that sometimes there simply is no answer to be found.  This does not imply that should be a rushed decision, but it ultimately may be the answer when there is not definitive way to prove what the truth is.

As for the multiple accusers angle, again, accusations without proof are still just accusations. A second accusation of a different event doesn't prove the first accusation true.  Each accusation should be able to stand on it's own merits.

I will add, I do not like that the Republicans are, at least on the surface, attempting to quickly push this confirmation through without a proper, fair, thorough vetting of the accusations.  While the manner in which these accusations came to light, in the 11th hour, is questionable at best, it does not change the fact that this is matter which should be taken seriously.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 10:37:53 PM by KGs Knee »

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #752 on: September 24, 2018, 10:34:20 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3710
  • Tommy Points: 617
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. It’s a bit odd to not get first names.   

What’s more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders — one male, one female — into a story about four male attackers.

Once all comes out, nothing is going to be certain but everyone will have to come to some conclusion based on what is said.  Roy H., are you saying that based what we all know at this point, that you think this woman is making this up or is just altogether mistaken?  To hold this position, means you believe Kavanaugh completely.

This is not a criminal trial (and isn't really a civil trial either) but only in a criminal trial is "beyond a shadow of doubt" a requirement.  If that was the measure, then there probably is a shadow of doubt and Kavanaugh would not go to jail.  But in a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing is certain and doesn't need to be, but based on what I have heard, I do not believe Ford is making anything up or mistaken about who tried to get her out of her bathing suite.  She may not remember the address or even the day of the week (if it was the summer for example, it could be any day).

I am really surprised that anyone could listen to these two stories and come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is the victim.

I'll repeat: this line of thinking is unjust and unethical.  It cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  What you 'believe' is irrelevant.  Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

If there is no physical evidence nor witness testimony, passing judgment on someone based on what you believe is the truth is wrong, dangerous, and unacceptable.  Testimony of the accuser is not evidence of anything, period.  This is the exact line of thinking that allowed things like the Salem witch trials, and the Red Scare to happen.

This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #753 on: September 24, 2018, 10:42:08 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35393
  • Tommy Points: 5870
Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

Interesting take.  So in the case of a woman who alleges sexual misconduct, if she doesn't have an airtight case, it shouldn't matter?  In judging if I think Kavanaugh is lying in a he said she said situation, I have to pick one or the other.  I choose based on the preponderance of the evidence.  Someone is lying, that we know, but it is impossible to "prove" which one is lying.  You are choosing to believe that Ford is lying.  You can't prove she is lying.

I understand your point that to some extent, I am using my belief that Kavanaugh did something to decide that he should not be a Supreme Court judge.  That actually isn't the case.  It is that he is lying about what he did, not what he may have done.  One accuser and he would have made it through.  Multiple accusers and you have exponentially more preponderance.

If republicans want to get to the bottom of this, they can.  The FBI would help.  They still might not be able to prove anything regarding criminal activity but lies would get exposed is my guess.

That's the thing, one does not have to choose to believe one or the other.  One can learn to accept that sometimes there simply is no answer to be found.  This does not imply that should be a rushed decision, but it ultimately may be the answer when there is not definitive way to prove what the truth is.

As for the multiple accusers angle, again, accusations without proof are still just accusations. A second accusation of a different event doesn't prove the first accusation true.  Each accusation should be able to stand on it's own merits.
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations. In both scenarios Kavanaugh is accused of being extremely drunk. His friends are accused of being very drunk. And both times there was sexual misconduct aimed at Kavanaugh and not his drunk friends.

There appears to be much evidence that Kavanaugh was a huge drinker both at Georgetown Prep and Yale. Ford told her husband and therapist about her attack 6 years ago. She passed a lie detector test, which isn't accepted proof in a court of law but suggests she is telling the truth.

And regardless of how many jokes are being made about her exact memories, it was 36 years ago and most people my age can not remember exact details of the where and when of matters, sometimes even important matters. For instance, I can't remember the name of the hotel I stayed in for my honeymoon, but do remember it was in San Juan. Important event in my life but I can't recall all I did or what hotel I stayed in. Probably because alcohol was involved.

And since alcohol was involved in these situations, I truly believe that Kavanaugh wouldn't remember the incidences. They probably weren't important events in his life and could easily have woken up the next morning with no recollection of what happened.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #754 on: September 24, 2018, 10:50:09 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11145
  • Tommy Points: 1312
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.


This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #755 on: September 24, 2018, 11:01:32 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35393
  • Tommy Points: 5870
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.


This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.
So by your standard, none of the Catholic preists did anything wrong and none of the Weinstein accusers were telling the truth and most victims that came out with the #MeToo movement ever had anything done to them.

I think it's great to have proof but in 36 year old accusations one must take the proof given and extrapolate what is the most likely scenario.This isn't a court of law.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #756 on: September 24, 2018, 11:36:05 PM »

Offline JSD

  • NCE
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10394
  • Tommy Points: 1229
Okay, quick rant: If you could put up roadblocks to “literally Hitler’s” accomplishments, you would do whatever is necessary, including smearing an innocent man with baseless unsubstantiated allegations. That is the mindset of these people. That’s what is going on here as far as I can tell based on the information. Again, this is the problem with a witch hunt like #metoo movement. You are guilty, forever, regardless of the truth. The fact that MeToo is now being used to tear down men in the political arena should not come as a surprise to nobody.

Modern Feminism is simply a wicked branch of authoritarianism, and if you are a man you better wake up and start speaking up against made up mainstream narratives that try to marginalize due process. “Believe her” yeah okay. That’s inherently sexist. Because she is a woman speaking out against a man she must be believed? Nonsense.... You could be next, especially if you’re going for a high quality position in whatever enterprise you are apart of.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #757 on: September 24, 2018, 11:45:12 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1251
  • Tommy Points: 116
False claims are thing thing, just not a very common thing. Most studies put the percentage of flase claims soemwhere between 2-9% of all sexual ssault accusations.

I cited a similar statistic above, that found that 6% of allegations were *proven* false.  Another roughly 45% had insufficient evidence to proceed, though.  What percentage of those were false, but couldn't be proven so?

Take Anita Hill.  She was caught in numerous false statements, and at the time of Thomas' confirmation hearing polls showed that over 60% of Americans thought she was lying.  (That number has shifted over time, to the point where the majority of Americans think she was telling the truth now.)

Is hers a false accusation?  I don't think it would meet the category of that; there's no definitive proof that it didn't happen.  It's just that there wasn't enough evidence and/or questions of credibility.

But, just because her allegation wasn't proven to be false doesn't mean that it is in fact accurate.

We arent taking about a small study, or even a few small studies. We are talking reviews of literally thousands of cases involving extensive police investigation. The 2-10 percentage point claim has been consistently reinforced time and time again in these studies. You can parse it however you wnat, the bottom line is that the rate of people lying about sexual assault is extremely low.

And you point out that 45% of cases go unresolved, but there is absolutely no reason to think that the rate of false reporting is substantally higher in unsolved cases than in solved cases. The police in theory investigated those case as well and could find no reason to list them as false reports. An investigation could fail to proceed for a number of reasons including the victim themslves being unwilling to proceed. Or the fact that foor the past thirty plus years people have been extremely quick to completely dismiss the victim because alcohol was involved, or her story wasn't perfect, or the man she was accusing was powerful, ect.

And then theres the fact that not all false allegations are created equal. Most false allegations are made against strangers, or fail to name a perpetrator at all (ex: I was raped by "someone,"), they typically arent hit jobs used to smear a person's character. And reporting of false allegations has so many probably including but not limited too how police themslves want to code a crime. For example if a women reports she blacked out at a party and gets a rape kit but if found to have not been assaulted police may term that "no crime," and such cases have typically led to an increased perception that false reports are a huge problem.

And when you consider the fact that most sexual assaults are never rrported you get to the heart of the issue, for one reaosn or another (shame, fear, trauma) women typically do not wnat to be identified as having been assaulted, and for that reason alone the rate of false reprorting wouldn't be expected to be that high.

Here's a good overview of the issue, if interested.

http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf




Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #758 on: September 24, 2018, 11:48:25 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11145
  • Tommy Points: 1312
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.


This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.
So by your standard, none of the Catholic preists did anything wrong and none of the Weinstein accusers were telling the truth and most victims that came out with the #MeToo movement ever had anything done to them.

I think it's great to have proof but in 36 year old accusations one must take the proof given and extrapolate what is the most likely scenario.This isn't a court of law.

Well, I'm not 100% familiar with all of the details of the Weinstein accusations, nor do I know the details of every accusation ever made against any particular priest, so I cannot comment with any certainty there.

But, pretending for a second that there was never any proof provided substantiating the accusations, I wouldn't be saying none of things didn't happen.  I'd be saying I don't know that they did.  And if I don't know for certain that those things happened it is inherently unjust of me to pass judgment on those accused.  Judgment could come in the form of criminal justice, civil penalty, or simply harboring thoughts that the accused did what they were accused of.  The standard for proof must be the same regardless, it's the only just way such matters should be considered.

The idea that one side or the other has to be believed is one that does not stand up to logic and reason.  Sometimes there is just no answer.  It's obviously desirable to find the truth, and that is not a trivial matter, but if it cannot be found, simply relying on what you think is most likely true is not something that is just for anyone involved.

Look, I don't expect you or anyone else to change your mind today.  This wasn't something I always understood, it's something that came about after many long discussions, contemplation, and self reflection.  But all I'd ask that you consider my thoughts.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #759 on: September 25, 2018, 12:32:13 AM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35393
  • Tommy Points: 5870
As I said many times in this thread, both Kavanaugh and Ford are credible. Alcohol and length of time since the alleged incident are both contributing factors in who remembers what. Ford stated Kavanaugh was drunk. His friend in high school wrote a book regarding their drinking and debauchery. Ford also told her therapist and husband of the incident 6 years ago. She passed a polygraph. That all lends credence to her story.

But I also believe Kavanaugh when he says he doesn't remember going to that party or doing the things he is accused of. My guess is he also could pass a polygraph. His memory of the incident could have been erased from his memory the very next day due to excessive alcohol. It's happened to all of us that drank to much at one time or another.

But now someone else has come forward with another Kavanaugh accusation and also states when Kavanaugh was quite drunk he shoved his penis in her face. There are people backing both parties. And know there is a common link in the stories, Kavanaugh being drunk and acting lewdly and forcing a sexual act, allegedly.

I think all parties need to be heard under oath and if possible subpoena all stated witnesses. Then, with sworn testimony we have evidence and people can decide who they believe.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #760 on: September 25, 2018, 12:41:44 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4642
  • Tommy Points: 393
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.


This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.
So by your standard, none of the Catholic preists did anything wrong and none of the Weinstein accusers were telling the truth and most victims that came out with the #MeToo movement ever had anything done to them.

I think it's great to have proof but in 36 year old accusations one must take the proof given and extrapolate what is the most likely scenario.This isn't a court of law.

Well, I'm not 100% familiar with all of the details of the Weinstein accusations, nor do I know the details of every accusation ever made against any particular priest, so I cannot comment with any certainty there.

But, pretending for a second that there was never any proof provided substantiating the accusations, I wouldn't be saying none of things didn't happen.  I'd be saying I don't know that they did.  And if I don't know for certain that those things happened it is inherently unjust of me to pass judgment on those accused.  Judgment could come in the form of criminal justice, civil penalty, or simply harboring thoughts that the accused did what they were accused of.  The standard for proof must be the same regardless, it's the only just way such matters should be considered.

The idea that one side or the other has to be believed is one that does not stand up to logic and reason.  Sometimes there is just no answer.  It's obviously desirable to find the truth, and that is not a trivial matter, but if it cannot be found, simply relying on what you think is most likely true is not something that is just for anyone involved.

Look, I don't expect you or anyone else to change your mind today.  This wasn't something I always understood, it's something that came about after many long discussions, contemplation, and self reflection.  But all I'd ask that you consider my thoughts.
The standard for proof isn't the same.  In criminal justice, it is beyond a reasonable doubt.  In civil justice, it is preponderance of the evidence.  In ordinary life, it is based on judgment calls and risk.  If there is an unproven accusation that someone applying for a security clearance might be a security risk or that someone applying to be a teacher may have harmed a kid, it may not be just but the decision should be to err on the side of caution. 

The truth is clouded by people's perceptions and biases.  We could know all the facts and still have differences of opinion on the truth and what should be done.  To an inexperienced 15 year old girl, an occurrence may be perceived as a traumatic incident.  Whereas a drunk, skirt chasing 17 year old boy, may just perceive it as a failed attempt to get lucky.  In this case, you're also dealing with differences in norms today versus 30+ years ago. 

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #761 on: September 25, 2018, 09:44:58 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3710
  • Tommy Points: 617
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.


This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.

You assert this, but it is simply not reality.  It is not a statement supported by law.  Further, it fundamentally misses what is at stake here.  It its not Kavanaugh's life/fate/career/whatever that is at stake here.  It is the awarding of the people's supreme court seat that will have judgement power over the people for decades.

That sort of thinking heads straight for the logical fallacy trap:   If not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ... therefore is worthy to sit on the highest court in the land.    That's ridiculous.   The former simply means he shouldn't go to jail.   The latter is supposed to have a much higher threshold of 'impeccable character' and qualifications.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #762 on: September 25, 2018, 11:00:53 AM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2506
  • Tommy Points: 644
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.


This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.


It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.
So by your standard, none of the Catholic preists did anything wrong and none of the Weinstein accusers were telling the truth and most victims that came out with the #MeToo movement ever had anything done to them.

I think it's great to have proof but in 36 year old accusations one must take the proof given and extrapolate what is the most likely scenario.This isn't a court of law.

Well, I'm not 100% familiar with all of the details of the Weinstein accusations, nor do I know the details of every accusation ever made against any particular priest, so I cannot comment with any certainty there.

But, pretending for a second that there was never any proof provided substantiating the accusations, I wouldn't be saying none of things didn't happen.  I'd be saying I don't know that they did.  And if I don't know for certain that those things happened it is inherently unjust of me to pass judgment on those accused.  Judgment could come in the form of criminal justice, civil penalty, or simply harboring thoughts that the accused did what they were accused of.  The standard for proof must be the same regardless, it's the only just way such matters should be considered.

The idea that one side or the other has to be believed is one that does not stand up to logic and reason.  Sometimes there is just no answer.  It's obviously desirable to find the truth, and that is not a trivial matter, but if it cannot be found, simply relying on what you think is most likely true is not something that is just for anyone involved.

Look, I don't expect you or anyone else to change your mind today.  This wasn't something I always understood, it's something that came about after many long discussions, contemplation, and self reflection.  But all I'd ask that you consider my thoughts.

You're correct that sometimes there is no definite answer on something.

Sometimes we need to accept that.

But in my personal life I certainly see trends in behavior with certain people. And when something new happens involving a given individual the previous evidence needs to be considered.

Let's say, for instance, that you have two roommates. One of them LOVES ice cream. The other rarely eats it. The first roommate has been caught stealing ice cream before. The second has not. You buy a tub of Cherry Garcia, put it in the freezer and then go to work, and later that night when you get home you get some late night munchies and want to mow some ice cream.

But, lo and behold, your ice cream is gone. Each roommate suggests the other is guilty.

You have no real evidence. But honestly what would you think? Would you entrust your first roommate to watch over your ice cream in the future?

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #763 on: September 25, 2018, 11:05:02 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37516
  • Tommy Points: -27478
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think the standard should be somewhere between KGK's take and those objecting to it.

For most cases, there will be some evidence.  Physical evidence, testimonial evidence, something.  That's not going to be the case after 35 years, obviously, and if it's impossible to examine evidence because an accuser kept quiet for three and a half decades, maybe the issue should be considered waived.  Waiting 35 years does a disservice to all involved, because it makes it absolutely impossible for the accused to defend himself with competent evidence.

But...  there will be cases where an assault is reported in a timely manner, and physical evidence is inconclusive.  Then, it comes down to credibility, which has some concerns.  "He said / she said" cases will definitely result in some guilty people going free, but it will also lead to innocent ones having their lives ruined.  A lot of people pay lip service to the idea of "I'd rather have 1000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be imprisoned".  If you believe that, credibility alone should never be a deciding factor there.  People lie in court every single day.  In some cases, juries or judges pick the person who seems most poised, using that as a substitute for truthfulness.  It's not.  Many people are very skilled liars.

And, people lie to their advantage in court constantly.  We lawyers -- most of whom are Democrats, btw -- have talked about this extensively in light of the Kavanaugh allegations.  Talking heads, sociologists, me-tooers, etc. suggest that people who report sexual crimes almost never lie.  That's nonsense.  Come to court some day, and you'll see tons of liars.  Some lie to keep themselves out of trouble.  Some lie to get a leg up in a divorce, or to get custody of their kids.  It's so prevalent that here in Maine, the factors the Court has to consider in making a custodial placement is whether the person seeking custody has made false allegations to gain a legal advantage.

If you accept that: 1) all people are innocent until proven guilty; and 2) no accusers are automatically more credible because of their gender or their claimed victimhood, it would help get to the bottom of this.

And, in terms of due process, I object to a lot of the claims made in here.  1)  No, the fact that there is a second allegation against somebody doesn't inherently add credibility to both the subsequent and former accusation.  Every accusation needs independent proof.  2) We don't "have" to pick one side or the other; it's fair to say "we can never know".   3) Painting people guilty by association is wrong.  4) It's absolutely not accurate to say that 2% - 10% of accusations are false.  That percentage is *proven* false.  Around 49% are *proven* true.  There's another 40% - 50% of accusations that are not proven either way.  To argue that none of those fall into the "false" category defies reason. 

So, I guess where I come down is the system our legal system recommends:  accusers make complaints, law enforcement investigates.  If there's probable cause, the case can go to a judge or a jury.  At that point, the burden needs to be on the government (or in civil proceedings, the accuser) to PROVE guilt.  Cases that hinge solely on credibility should be heard, but jurors and judges should be skeptical of finding guilt in those cases, and should check their biases before rendering any sort of verdict. 


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #764 on: September 25, 2018, 11:08:21 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37516
  • Tommy Points: -27478
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .

You have no real evidence. But honestly what would you think? Would you entrust your first roommate to watch over your ice cream in the future?

Perhaps not, but if 35 years goes by with all three of you as roommates, with no problems, and then the 1st roommate says "Hey, 35 years ago our other roommate stole your ice cream" without anybody having ever mentioned it before that time, it would probably affect how you acted as well.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required