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?

[bluethread]

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.

That is not correct. Kavanaugh has made no accusations with regard to Ford. It is Ford who is making the accusation, therefore, Ford has the burden of proof.

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.

This is also not correct. In civil case the presumption of innocence remains with the accused. What changes is the burden of proof on the accuser. In a criminal case the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case, the burden is "the preponderance of the evidence". In both cases, if the burden remains with the accuser.

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.

That is strike three, credibility is never to be presumed. Credibility is determined based on corroborating evidence. The riight message to send to victims is for them to gather evidence. Look your assailent in the eye and memorize the eye color and every feature, note the wall paper, tell an independent third party as soon as possible. In short, take responsibility for yourself and quit playing the victim. No one can be blamed for being a victim. However, the victim that does not stand up and take resposibility for what happens afterward can not be expect to be believed. In fact, that is one of the first steps in overcoming psychological damage, take control.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 28 by DeMotts]

And if by contrast I got up in front of the nation full of rage and said that I'd never even seen a wallet like yours before ever and claimed it was a conspiracy by the Clintons and that my life was ruined and that references to "the wallet game" in my yearbook was a drinking game yeah I think people would possibly find you credible.

You want apples to apples, but a claim of mugging, of stealing a wallet, is hardly at all in the same ballpark as sexual assault/rape. Granted it was AgnosticBoy who brought it up, but still...look at the amount of people who hate Kavanaugh, the actions they've taken to express their hatred of him and their belief in the accusation.
I can understand his frustration in his hearing.

This is a good point, I concede it's still not a fair comparison. Sexual assault is definitely it's own classification of crime.

I think what frustrates me about the Kavanaugh hearing is that it seemed to me like he made a calculation that it was best for him to deny ALL the behaviours is was asked about and not give an inch (somewhat Trumpian really), because if he opened that door a crack it would make the rest of the story more credible. So he says "no way I never got blackout drunk" or "no way I've never drank and not remembered something", but then he's got the Ralph Club stuff and plenty of people with stories about him being a party animal, he got in a fight after a UB 40 concert, etc. Clearly he was drinking and his partying during that time in his life. His flat denial was dishonest. Then he throws in the Clinton conspiracy stuff and it just sounds like talking points.

And if you had the guts to stand in front of the nation and basically ruin your own life to make that claim, with absolutely no benefit to yourself,

Ford gets believed by millions of people, who chant "Believe women!" (who then later write articles chastising the white women who they say gave us Trump, all with nary a thought for the hypocrisy of their position). She gets victim bux.

I think she deserved to be heard and was heard. Ok imagine this scenario (which is hypothetical, not saying this is what happened, but let's pretend): Imagine Kavanaugh and Judge are drinking with their friends one night and they get pretty hammered and a girl and her friend show up to hang out and party, and maybe they're just goofing around with this girl. They're wrestling or being dumb 17 year old guys or something and they're not actually going to rape this girl but she's actually scared and feels not in control. They could both feel somewhat justified in their feelings and memories of the event. Ford would describe it one way, Kavanaugh knows that he can't possibly give a side of the story that would let him still be a supreme court justice so his play is to go 100% denial on everything.

And obviously the case plays into a larger partisan narrative. Conservatives will see this as a family man who is getting unfairly victimized by a culture that will believe anyone and take down anybody they don't like or approve of, including people who did goofy stuff in high school. I agree that we need to be cautious about taking everything at face value. I think some Liberals are upset that this guy is potentially a skeezy guy that assaults women. But I think some are upset that this seems like they had an obligation to hear Dr. Ford out, it should have been looked into with more thoroughness by the FBI and without an arbitrary time limit, and that Kavanaugh's reaction to the accusation was worrisome for the temperament of an objective judge on the SC.

Ultimately it feels like another power grab by a Republican party protecting a president that has a huge amount of accusations and mounting evidence starting to pile up against him, for purely partisan reasons and to allow them to enact an agenda. I mean this whole story absolutely buried the NY Times article on Trump that accuses with extreme confidence his entire family of tax fraud, an allegation that would just destroy any Liberal/Democrat president. This felt like another inappropriately rushed procedure because the nominee was favourable to the president.

[AgnosticBoy]

This is a good point, I concede it's still not a fair comparison. Sexual assault is definitely it's own classification of crime.

Sexual assault causes more harm than a simple theft, but my point was the level of evidence behind my claim and Dr. Ford's is the same. All we have is an accusation which amount to mere words.

I think she deserved to be heard and was heard. Ok imagine this scenario (which is hypothetical, not saying this is what happened, but let's pretend): Imagine Kavanaugh and Judge are drinking with their friends one night and they get pretty hammered and a girl and her friend show up to hang out and party, and maybe they're just goofing around with this girl. They're wrestling or being dumb 17 year old guys or something and they're not actually going to rape this girl but she's actually scared and feels not in control. They could both feel somewhat justified in their feelings and memories of the event. Ford would describe it one way, Kavanaugh knows that he can't possibly give a side of the story that would let him still be a supreme court justice so his play is to go 100% denial on everything.

The only problem is no one remembers this party except for Dr. Ford. So there's no corroborating evidence to even tie Justice Kavanaugh to any scene involving Dr. Ford.

And obviously the case plays into a larger partisan narrative. Conservatives will see this as a family man who is getting unfairly victimized by a culture that will believe anyone and take down anybody they don't like or approve of, including people who did goofy stuff in high school. I agree that we need to be cautious about taking everything at face value. I think some Liberals are upset that this guy is potentially a skeezy guy that assaults women. But I think some are upset that this seems like they had an obligation to hear Dr. Ford out, it should have been looked into with more thoroughness by the FBI and without an arbitrary time limit, and that Kavanaugh's reaction to the accusation was worrisome for the temperament of an objective judge on the SC.

All I care for is actual evidence, not speculation.

You tried to use testifying in front of the senate as evidence that Dr. Ford was telling the truth. I pointed out that she did not want to testify at first and instead was pressured by the Democrats to do so.

If your position is that Dr. Ford is telling the truth then you should offer more evidence than just mere words. Do exactly what you do in the Science forum, and offer some critical, skeptical, good quality thinking and evidence.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 33 by AgnosticBoy]

Hey man you're making fair points, and I concede that without evidence of the event in question it's hearsay. You're right that we should apply a standard of evidence, and yes I do post in the science forum as you pointed out so it's hypocritical for me to have one standard here and another there. Good points.

I'm also open to the possibility that a gathering happened that was completely not-out-of-the-ordinary for everyone involved except Ford (and Kavanaugh and Judge), and completely not-memorable. Think about how many times you've gotten together with your friends and how many times you specifically remember details for what happened, who was there, exactly when you hung out, especially when drinking was involved and a lot of time has passed. There's also a possibility that Kavanaugh and Judge do remember but have no reason or motivation to tell the truth about it.

My point is that he flatly denied EVER drinking to the point of forgetting anything at all ever or blacking out, and that he was a virgin until much later, and that he was this pristine choir boy image. There is actual evidence that these are not true statements. But he can't crack that door open at all, so played a hard line as a means to an end. Not to mention that Ford told her therapist about it in 2012, is she setting up the biggest long-con ever?

[Elijah John]

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?

Who's doing that? No one that I know of. Kavanaugh's defenders were looking for corroberating evidence., not assuming Prof Ford was automatically lying.

Plus they were rightly suspicious of the ambush timing of the accusation by Senate Democrats.

In fact, many of the Judge's defenders said Ford sounded sincere. She may well have believed what she was saying.

There are other alternatives than "one of 'ems lying".

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 34 by DeMotts]

I appreciate your acknowledging the evidence. I'll at least agree that the scenario you brought up is possible. But the problem I tend to have with a lot of unknowns is that we shouldn't be building a case off of or to establish credibility.

Fredonly also paints a similar scenario to yours but again it begs the question of if a party ever occurred involving Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford to begin with. There are no corroborating witnesses to this party, Kavanaugh doesn't claim he partied with this woman, ever. So anything built from this starting point will be nothing more than words and that's because the starting point is speculation or hearsay, at best.

As for her therapist, there are reports that she never mentioned Kavanaugh's name. The therapist is not a detective so he or she has little available to weigh the veracity of how it happened, if there's exaggeration, who did it, etc.

[AgnosticBoy]

Former president Bill Clinton has had rape allegations against him. There are reports that Mrs. Clinton insulted some of these women. I wonder if liberals would accept these women's words based off of hearsay like they do Christine Ford's.

I'm saying all of this as an independent. The solution for overcoming these blatant biases is not to think in terms of what the other party would do, but rather it should be consistently applying logic and evidence despite political ideology.

[AgnosticBoy]

The Lt. Virginia governor has 2 accusations of sexual assault against him. I wonder if Democrats will take the word of his 2 accusers based on nothing more than hearsay evidence just as they did Justice Kavanaugh's accusers.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy]

It would appear that yes, their position is consistent. When there are credible accusations they call for an investigation and for the person in question to resign.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics ... index.html

What do you think they should do AgnosticBoy? Do you think they should dig in like Republicans did on Kavanaugh?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy]

It would appear that yes, their position is consistent. When there are credible accusations they call for an investigation and for the person in question to resign.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics ... index.html

What do you think they should do AgnosticBoy? Do you think they should dig in like Republicans did on Kavanaugh?

I'll answer yes to this question. They should have their fair day in court, and a presumption of innocence.