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

Because I believe in due process in the context of justice meted out by institutional tribunals.

 

We were all indoctrinated to think that way, yes. But approximately 2 percent of sex crime allegations are false. Of those 2 percent, most (like Duke lacrosse) are easily and early dispensed. If we dispensed with reasonable doubt for sex crimes, the number of wrongfully convicted would be miniscule, wouldn't it? Meanwhile, it's a current tragedy that an enormous percentage of sex crimes go unpunished, more than any other serious crime, because they are so difficult to prove. And it would be one thing if the only consequence were that someone got away with something. But that's not the only consequence. These men go free to harass, assault, and rape again and again and again.

All of this avoidable if we dispensed with reasonable doubt and accepted the collateral consequence of a minimal number of wrongful convictions.

I share your instinct. But when I think about it in these terms, I'm really not sure how to defend it.

 

Let's tee this up (there's a point):

The result of applying due process to sex crimes results in a low conviction rate, right?

A low conviction rate (and thus due process) leads to more sex crimes, because a lot of criminals go free, right?

But ultimately we still value the individual liberty of the falsely accused, right?

Even though we admit that, in aggregate, there would be less violence against women and very few wrongful convictions if we dispensed with due process in this context, right?

We value individual liberty over the greater good.

That's a correct statement?

 

You're telling me!

 

The reason such a high percentage of sex crimes go unpunished is not because due process gets in the way; it's because of the incredible amount of power wielded by (mostly) white men in all facets of life.

 

It's a really difficult crime to prosecute because there is often little difference between the evidence of a consensual and non-consensual act, and it's one of the few (I can't think of another, but I don't want to be absolute here) serious crimes in which there is a corresponding consensual action. I can't imagine anyone consenting to be shot or stabbed or robbed.

 

You're right. I guess I'm in more of an odd mood than usual today.

 

The first amendment and restrictions on hate speech are perfectly compatible as is. You must be a shitty lawyer if you don’t get that.

 

This is absolute horseshit.

 

In your fantasy version of the First Amendment in which you aren't restricted by precedent and, you know, what do they call it ... law ... I ... guess that's right?

 

That just makes these cases more difficult and nuanced to try in court. If there was something close to gender balance across the legislative and judicial systems, the outcomes would be far different.

 

Thus leading to a lower conviction rate.