Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

One important distinction for consideration; "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction of a crime.

Is that the same standard for use in determining whether someone is (1) fit to be a candidate for US Senator? (2) is subject to public ridicule? (3) disqualified from being a US Senator? (4) subject to public ridicule?

IMHO no. Just because someone was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean everyone should pretend nothing happened. That's our choice. Not guilty does not equal crime not committed. It means there was not sufficient evidence to persuade 12 jurors to say there was not reasonable doubt regarding the allegation.

One can be convicted in the public's eyes; the key is whether it matters to you what the public thinks. Yes, to be judged by the public can be harsh. That's why people don't want to run for public office, the scrutiny is tremendous. But when you choose to pursue public office, don't forget the scrutiny and judgments that will be made.

The level of detail, which remains the bedrock of credibility to lawyers, is quite good with respect to the Moore accuser. More importantly, there has not been any denial by Moore; only his failure to recall, which equates to being at the mercy of the accusation because you cannot refute it.

 

Rick Stain is probably insulted by her tweet.

 

Well, why not?

 

And no sane person would disagree with you. But “receiving these women with compassion” is different than setting “belief” as your default, when there is another person involved here, the accused. My instinct is to believe the woman. My instinct is also to believe eyewitnesses in other crimes. My instinct is to believe that juries get things right. But sometimes they don’t. You don’t want to receive women with “doubt.” The entire criminal and civil justice system has “doubt” baked in - we investigate allegations. No one considers that insulting.

There have been some great speeches here about the importance of trials and the “bedrock” principle of reasonable doubt. But reasonable doubt makes it very difficult to convict this particular crime because of its nature - the fact you can also consent to sexual contact. We avoid faulty convictions utilizing reasonable doubt, but it undoubtedly leads to thousands of assaulters walking free and, presumably, to thousands of additional assaults and victims. It is not remotely clear to me that reasonable doubt serves the greater good here, as regards this particular crime.

My instinct is to say we should still confer due process as we think of it, but it’s then difficult for me to articulate why, given what I just talked about. Why can’t we break a few eggs to make an omelet?

 

I agree with everything you said there. But, of course, the result will never be perfect. There will always be sexual crimes going unreported because of fear of retribution, shame, etc. And there will always be instances of wrongful accusations. So there will always be the opportunity for either side to say we haven't advanced enough.

 

It’s a little like the Reese Witherspoon discussion. The majority of posters thought it was correct form to write that she “revealed that she was sexually assaulted,” but would not write that were there a named accused. Here we believe the woman - but not at the expense of a handful of wrongful convictions.

“Belief” is a nice gesture that comes from a good place. But it’s kind of an empty one when we drill down. We won’t tie it to any real risks or consequences that might upset the apple cart as we’ve come to know and internalize it.

 

And not for nothing, but you would happily rewrite the First Amendment to exclude hate speech.

Suddenly your hands are tied by the Constitution?

What a weird answer.

 

You didn't respond to my post. You just kept on with your argument. Perhaps you could simply acknowledge the unfairness of the point you are making, then go on?

Also, do we have threads about robbery? I don't remember any.

Actually, there is pus back in arguments regarding murder, specifically the death penalty. People do raise the concern of unjust convictions.

I don't see any hysteria here regarding false accusations. I see people pointing out the flaw in your argument and I see some people raising the issue.

And some, not me, are questioning if you really do want full investigations and fair trials for all crimes. That is why Dickie is asking the question you hate so much, the one you keep avoiding.

So let's put it to you this way. Do you believe people accused of sexual assault and/or rape deserve the same full investigation and fair trial as those accused of murder or robbery?

 

Because 10 other guys accused of sexual assault did it, you did it. You really think our justice system should be making that argument? Change 10 to any number you like, but it's still not right.

 

People are always telling me I shouldn't worry so much about the burden of proof in a discussion on SJ.com, but it sounds like Rick wants to throw it out in sexual assault trials.

If I'm misunderstanding your argument, Rick, please correct me. Because that seems to be the question Dick is trying to get you to answer.

Heaven help me, I'm on Dickie's side of an argument.

Edit: By the way, Rick, please consider my point in this context before you reply. Please consider how often I have argued for the burden of proof in a variety of situations before you respond to me with a post that suggests I'm questioning your argument because I'm a man.

 

He won’t answer one way or the other. He just says it’s a “weird” question.

 

I think inverting the burden of proof — I’m only talking criminal justice system or campus tribunal here — actually trivializes, to a degree, the charge. Maintaining the “reasonable doubt” standard actually underscores just how serious we consider the offense.