Presumption of Innocence vs Presumption of Lying

[fredonly]

Republican supporters of Brett Kavanaugh have argued that he deserves a presumption of innocence. An accusation should not be treated as proof of guilt. I agree with this sentiment.

But isn't it equally inappropriate to assume an accusation is a lie unless proven true?

[Divine Insight]

Republican supporters of Brett Kavanaugh have argued that he deserves a presumption of innocence. An accusation should not be treated as proof of guilt. I agree with this sentiment.

But isn't it equally inappropriate to assume an accusation is a lie unless proven true?

This isn't a court of law that we're talking about. It's a job interview for the highest court in the land.

For me it doesn't really matter whether Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual misconduct during his high school and college days. It could be that both Kavanaugh and Ford are telling the truth concerning the sexual misconduct to the best of their memory. I suppose it's possible that Ford could have been mistaken concerning the identity of Kavanaugh.

However, even if we are to give Kavanugh the benefit of the doubt here, I feel that he has still disqualified himself by exposing his own inability to remain civil under pressure. The last thing we need are Surpreme Court Justices who have a temper or emotions they can't control.

I would have been far more impressed by Kavanaugh if he would have been able to retain a shred of maturity throughout this whole ordeal. He could have openly confessed that he may have had drinking problems in high-school and college. He could have even openly confessed that he may have done things while under the influence that he would have never done when sober.

Had he approached this entire interview from this perspective with maturity and openly confessed that he wasn't always perfect, then I don't think anyone could hold that against him.

But clearly that wasn't the case. Instead he became extremely defensive proclaiming himself to have been a saint in spite of his obviously heavy drinking. Refusing to admit to even having normal humans flaws. He should have remained respectful at all times and treated every senator as if they were indeed the judge.

His current behavior disqualifies him as far as I'm concerned regardless of whether he actually committed the sexually abusive acts or not. IMHO, he's not fit to be a judge at all, on any court, much less on the Supreme Court.

I can't believe even the republicans would allow a man like this to be on the Supreme Court. They must really be hard-up to get a conservative judge on the court at all cost.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed our Supreme Court will no longer be respectable. The Republicans really need to think long and hard about that one.

[rikuoamero]

Republican supporters of Brett Kavanaugh have argued that he deserves a presumption of innocence. An accusation should not be treated as proof of guilt. I agree with this sentiment.

But isn't it equally inappropriate to assume an accusation is a lie unless proven true?

This isn't a court of law that we're talking about. It's a job interview for the highest court in the land.

For me it doesn't really matter whether Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual misconduct during his high school and college days. It could be that both Kavanaugh and Ford are telling the truth concerning the sexual misconduct to the best of their memory. I suppose it's possible that Ford could have been mistaken concerning the identity of Kavanaugh.

However, even if we are to give Kavanugh the benefit of the doubt here, I feel that he has still disqualified himself by exposing his own inability to remain civil under pressure. The last thing we need are Surpreme Court Justices who have a temper or emotions they can't control.

I would have been far more impressed by Kavanaugh if he would have been able to retain a shred of maturity throughout this whole ordeal. He could have openly confessed that he may have had drinking problems in high-school and college. He could have even openly confessed that he may have done things while under the influence that he would have never done when sober.

Had he approached this entire interview from this perspective with maturity and openly confessed that he wasn't always perfect, then I don't think anyone could hold that against him.

But clearly that wasn't the case. Instead he became extremely defensive proclaiming himself to have been a saint in spite of his obviously heavy drinking. Refusing to admit to even having normal humans flaws. He should have remained respectful at all times and treated every senator as if they were indeed the judge.

His current behavior disqualifies him as far as I'm concerned regardless of whether he actually committed the sexually abusive acts or not. IMHO, he's not fit to be a judge at all, on any court, much less on the Supreme Court.

I can't believe even the republicans would allow a man like this to be on the Supreme Court. They must really be hard-up to get a conservative judge on the court at all cost.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed our Supreme Court will no longer be respectable. The Republicans really need to think long and hard about that one.

God forbid a man express some frustration at having his name slandered in what amounts to a kangaroo court all with no evidence and plenty of people believe the accusations

[fredonly]

God forbid a man express some frustration at having his name slandered in what amounts to a kangaroo court all with no evidence and plenty of people believe the accusations

It makes perfect sense that he would feel and express his frustration, but it was a severe error to do so in a partisan rant. He missed an opportunity to display a judicial temperament, building on his assertion that Ford may have had such an experience, and focusing on the fact that it was someone else, and the impossibility of proving a negative.

Democrats indeed were against him from the start, just like Republicans were against Garland. It is partisan hypocrisy to condemn only one side for this. But that partisanship has no bearing on the accusation itself: either he did it or someone else did: that was the only thing he should have confronted.

[bluethread]

Republican supporters of Brett Kavanaugh have argued that he deserves a presumption of innocence. An accusation should not be treated as proof of guilt. I agree with this sentiment.

But isn't it equally inappropriate to assume an accusation is a lie unless proven true?

This is a false dichotomy. Presumption of innocence does not equate to an accusation of lying. The presumption on the accuser is falsehood not lying. In fact, it is even less than that, because one is not found innocent. One is found either guilty or not guilty. One can be not guilty, but still not innocent. One argument is that the hearing was not a court of law, so the accuser should be believed. The interesting thing is that on this sight, which I presume is not a court of law, that is not the case. When one makes an assertion, one is required to provide substantiation on demand. Why is that? Could it be that assertions, even if firmly and honestly believed, may not be correct?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

One argument is that the hearing was not a court of law, so the accuser should be believed.

I agree, it wasn't a trial, but still, shouldn't the presumption of innocence, the spirit of requiring evidence be held to anyway? Imagine if this spread to other job interviews, Joe Schmoe goes to interview for a position, and his ex hears about it, turns up and accuses him of rape, and apparently she doesn't need to supply evidence, she should be believed anyway.
What Ford accused Kavanaugh of is a crime, it's a legal matter, and therefore, should not be brought up unless she's going to formally accuse him of a crime and he can therefore have a trial.

fredonly

But isn't it equally inappropriate to assume an accusation is a lie unless proven true?

The thing is, with Ford it's looking very much like she is lying. She lied about her fear of flying, none of the people she claimed could back her up have done so and she can't provide key information such as when and where it happened, nor how she managed to get home after the alleged assault.
So it's not just that the accusation is not assumed true, it's that upon investigation, it falls apart and looks like to be a lie.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

However, even if we are to give Kavanugh the benefit of the doubt here, I feel that he has still disqualified himself by exposing his own inability to remain civil under pressure. The last thing we need are Surpreme Court Justices who have a temper or emotions they can't control.

Is your worry that what Kavanaugh expressed during the hearing is what he'll likely express during cases he might rule over? If so, I have to point out that the two situations would be very different.
This is a hearing where he is personally being accused of some of the worst crimes imaginable, and his detractors don't seem to care about the complete lack of corroborating evidence, not to mention the counter-evidence that he supplied in the form of journals/diaries from the time periods in question.
Whereas cases he'd be ruling on? Do you think he'd be acting the same as he did in the hearing?

[Goat]

[quote="rikuoamero]

God forbid a man express some frustration at having his name slandered in what amounts to a kangaroo court all with no evidence and plenty of people believe the accusations[/quote]


And god forbid that a woman who has been sexually assaulted be condemned , threatened, mocked, and scorned for making an accusation. Just think the message that is being sent to all women who were sexually assaulted.

[fredonly]

When one makes an assertion, one is required to provide substantiation on demand. Why is that? Could it be that assertions, even if firmly and honestly believed, may not be correct?

If we set aside consequences and focus strictly on identifying what we can justifiably conclude, the evidence is prima facie equivalent: Ford says x, while Kavanaugh say ~x. Substantiation isn't "required" but it might tip the scales a bit in one direction or other.

It is consideration of the consequences that directs us to consider a man innocent until proven guilty in a criminal trial, a presumption that directs jurors to maintain unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, both parties are considered prima facie credible and it just takes a preponderance of evidence to choose a side. There's no rule about how Senators should treat an appointee, but the criminal standard seems rather weak. Even the civil standard is arguably too weak.

But the main point I'm trying to convey is that Ford should be judged independently of Kavanaugh. Credible testimony should be given the benefit of the doubt, and assumed to be probably speaking truth - conveying facts. That is the right message to send to other people who have been crime victims, because otherwise we're telling them their stories will not be believed unless they have corroborating evidence. That also tells perpetrators how they can get away with anything.

[fredonly]

[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 694#936694]

fredonly

But isn't it equally inappropriate to assume an accusation is a lie unless proven true?

The thing is, with Ford it's looking very much like she is lying. She lied about her fear of flying,...
So it's not just that the accusation is not assumed true, it's that upon investigation, it falls apart and looks like to be a lie.

There's zero evidence she lied about having a fear of flying. You seem to have a misconception that having a fear of flying implies the person would never fly. If you're drawing a conclusion about her based on this, you should research it. Not only is her behavior consistent with a fear of flying, but friends of hers have attested to it, and noted that she takes medication to control her panic when flying.

none of the people she claimed could back her up have done so and she can't provide key information such as when and where it happened, nor how she managed to get home after the alleged assault.

Having selective memory is common with assault victims, so that has zero bearing. Except for Kavanaugh and Judge (the alleged perpetrators), no one else was aware of the incident. An absence of corroborating evidence is not evidence of lying. For other attendees, it was just one gathering among many during their high school years - so it's hardly surprising they'd forget one that wasn't notable to them. These issues aren't evidence that her claims are false, they are simply a lack of evidence that they are true. An absence of evidence doesn't tip the scales in either direction.

Judge her independently of Kavanaugh. Judge her as you would anyone who says they had a traumatic experience when they were in high school 30 years earlier. They deserve to be believed. Not to the point that an accusation should be sufficient to send a man to jail - and perhaps not even enough to deny someone a promotion (although that's debatable). Be fair to both of them, because we can't really know what the truth is, and neither deserves to be treated as a liar. Treating Ford that way serves to give carte blanche to others to commit assault - as long as no one else is around when they do it.