Is Kavanaugh innocent?

Gooberry

1.) Its not a trial, it’s a job interview.

2.) Many people have been victims of assault and don’t speak out: that’s not controversial. The idea that someone would speak out at a time when it was most important to do so, doesnt strike me as unreasonable.

SilverishGoldNova

@Gooberry Interesting points on the second one, although I think you missed the point on the first one. The point is, too many people are having their lives and careers destroyed over false accusations of rape. Why not tell the Duke Lacrosse players or Brian Banks that we should automatically believe them? These may seem like isolated incidents, but in reality they are becoming increasingly common. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how it should be. And yes, there are many people who have been victims but haven't come forward, but am I supposed to believe people who lie about it help?

MayCaesar

Indeed, until proven guilty, he is innocent. This is a usual political witch hunt, same as Benghazi and "but the e-mails!" with regards to Clinton or "he is a Muslim born in Kenya" with regards to Obama.

On a side note, it is unfortunate how much people's private lives have become a factor in the political process. Whether Kavanaugh assaulted someone or not should be decided by investigators; it has nothing to do with his ability to do the job he is applying for. The questions the senators should ask about him instead are: "Does he know the law? Is he an experienced lawyer? Does he respect the Constitution? Will his party affiliation and political biases affect the rationality of his rulings negatively?" To me Kavanaugh seems to be one of the best candidates for the Supreme Court in a couple of decades, and even the most die-hard anti-Republicans must admit that he is more than qualified for the job.

Nathaniel_B

I believe he is. How long should it be until you actually REPORT a rape? That just doesn't make sense to me. And these accusers are just tryin to get some clout, and they ain't need it either. 30 YEARS, doesn't remember the year or date it happened, was scared to fly on a plane, but came anyways, all these things make me very critical of that lady. 

MayCaesar

@Nathaniel_B ;

People might not report crimes for decades for various reasons: shame, escapism, mistrust towards the system of justice, it not being a big deal for them, etc.
It is another matter than these reports tend to magically "coincide" with major political events. Kavanaugh has been a popular figure for well over a decade now, but it is exactly now, when he is running for a public office and his candidacy needs to be approved, this scandal suddenly pops up. It does look extremely suspicious, and given how fast those accusers change their stories, forgetting what they said yesterday, while claiming to have a perfect recollection of events that happened 40 years ago (I wonder if anyone on this planet remembers ANYTHING in vivid detail from 40 years ago) - there is zero reason to take these accusations as genuine.

On the legal note, almost all legal systems in the world (including all 50 state systems in the US) have fixed time limits for criminal charges. I do not know which of these systems applies to Kavanaugh, but I am strongly doubtful that a crime from many decades ago has not legally expired by now in all systems he might possibly be a subject to.

Zombieguy1987

1. There is no crime scene
2. The "Witnesses" said that they don't remember being at a party
3. It took 35 years before Ford reported it. That means the important evidence is gone.
4. It's really suspicious that she would report this ON THE DAY Kavanaugh is nominated for the Supreme Court 

So, from this list, I come to the conclusion that he is innocent 

WordsMatter

1. Not a criminal trial, not even a case being presented in court. Even then beyond a reasonable doubt isn't the only system we use in court. Small claims and military court can use different standards.

The law recognizes three different burdens of proof, best illustrated by picturing Lady Justice with the scales:

• Beyond a reasonable doubt means the scale is totally out of balance on your side because you’ve piled up a great deal of credible evidence.

• Clear and convincing evidence means the scales are substantially tipping over in your direction.

• Preponderance of the evidence means that the scales are only slightly tipped in your favor, just enough to get the scale out of balance. It’s more likely than not that your presentation of the facts is true.

Most people are familiar with the burden of proof in a criminal case — the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This does not mean 100 percent certainty. And it doesn’t mean no doubt at all. But it’s the most difficult proof standard recognized in the law.

As someone who is not a part of the government and not presiding over a court case about this, I have no required standard to determine whether I think he is guilty or not. I seem to remember plenty of calls for Hillary to go to jail long before a trial took place. Should citizens jump to conclusions on someone's guilt? Maybe, maybe not. After all court cases can take years, and at least at the jobs I've worked they require you to tell them within 5 days of just being arrested and can use that as grounds to fire you, guilty or not.

2. I think automatically believing accusers belongs in personal interaction with them, outside odd the court system. If you have a friend come tell you she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, instead of trying to conduct your own trial on the matter it's better to just treat her as if what she said is true when speaking with her personally. If called as a witness, or even just talking about the case with others you don't need to believe her. So often a woman will just tell a friend about sexual assault and the questions, what were you wearing, were you alone at night, why were you drinking, all come up. When other women see this it makes them less likely to speak up. When a woman brings forward a charge like this she needs to be believed by those close to her so she cab have a support system, but again if you then get questioned by the police about it you don't need to believe it and instead should be honest with the police.

It's easier to show a false rape claim that hurt someone than a true rape claim that was never believed or brought justice, but the latter certainly happens just as much if not more than the former.

3. So the PA grand jury report on the pedophile priests is or over blown because some cases are 50 years old? Sandusky at Penn state wasn't really as bad they say because some of the cases went back 30 years? Bill Cosby can't be considered a serial rapist because even though he was found guilty there was only one case still within the statute of limitations? How about all those tens of thousands of rape kits sitting untested, does it make those claims false because of time? Your argument around time is very poor.

YeshuaBought

Liberal timing is suspect here.

CYDdharta

It isn't just the timing, it's also the complete lack of corroboration.  Not a single person Ford claims was a witness will corroborate her stories, in fact most refute them.

Then there are the lies Ford has gotten caught making and other actions she's taken;

She said she couldn't testify on Sept 17 because she was afraid to fly.

She coached people on how to take polygraph tests and lied about it.

Ford and/or her allies pressured of Ford's friends to change her testimony.

There are more, but those are the ones that stand out for me of what's come to light so far.

AmericanFurryBoy

As of right now there isn’t any evidence to say he’s not.

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter ;

A person who lived 40 years ago is a completely different person from the one who is living today. Sure, you can hold a microbe that, without consent, merged with another microbe 3 billion years ago accountable - but such a system of justice will not be very effective, to put it lightly.

There are witch hunts in Europe after former National-Socialist members, that are sought and judged for the crimes they may have committed 80 years ago. I would expect you to be above advocating for such petty behavior and realize that on such timescales people change completely, and there is no "rehabilitation" to occur for something that happened before 95% of the modern US population was born.

Not to mention that the allegations themselves are laughable. He hugged someone and put a hand on their mouth for a second on a friendly student party 40 years ago? With the way things are going nowadays, we will soon see "Hey" said by Caesar to one of his female troops as a sexual assault - but come on, let us be reasonable. This is not something that should compromise someone's credibility to work as the Supreme Court member. 

It appales me that so many people focus on whether the allegations are true or not, not seeing the big picture in which this whole story hardly qualifies to be published in a tweet, let alone constitutes a serious discussion in the senate.

Something needs to be done about this Orwellian mindset so many people nowadays are exhibiting, or we will soon be marching on the streets and singing songs about the Great Leader. It is quickly becoming harder to find something that does not make one an evil person, than something that does. One misstep on a student evening, and the person is damned for a lifetime.

WordsMatter

@MayCaesar this behavior is nothing new. It's just finally targeting white men in power. Where were the out cries about false rape claims when they literally got black men killed, even as young as Emmett Till? His accuser even admitted it was a lie recently but the examples brought it in the op were all against white men in the spotlight.

As I said in my post above this isn't a great attitude to hold, but it's nothing new and isn't bringing us any closer to an orwellian future than it did 100 years ago. However you can't take someone's right away to form their own opinion on an individual without proving what they think beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just human nature, humans are fickle inconsistent beings and you can't police our argue that away.

I agree that arguing his guilt in this case is irrelevant to his nomination. However it is relevant if it did happen and he lied under oath about it. Certainly you can't appoint someone as a judge who disrespects the law in their hearings to lie under oath. That is the bigger picture that liberals don't argue. 

If you want to combat this type of judgment you can't do it in adults using this case as your argument. It needs to be instilled in children who are quick to believe rumours and dole out their own social punishment on that. In our society it's ok for kids to do that, how east is it to change their mind when they were raised that it's ok to do that?

I had a rumor spread about me that I do heroine because I hung out with someone who did so that I could watch over them and make sure they were safe. Is our unfair and damaging to my public image? Yes, but nothing can be done about it. People will believe what they want to believe and they have the right to do it.

How should someone reply if told that their significant other cheated on them with no proof? What If three people say it? It's all the same principle.