Drlee wrote:POD. You are not making any argument to answer the question Beren posed. "So what now?"
You have offered a convoluted non-argument about how the truth is just the truth and....
Shrodinger's cat.
I am with Beren. I agree that the women are probably telling the truth. Or at least some of them are. So each person, just like a jury, is free to decide who they believe and vote accordingly.
So you and Beren agree with me. Cool.
But then there is court. In any real determination of truth the burden of proof must lie with the accuser. To attempt to construct any system operating differently is to turn the courts into instruments of extortion.
Not quite.
In a court of justice, the burden of proof lies with accuser, and this is a resilt of ensuring individual liberty when the accuser is a state.
But this is not a way of arriving at truth. It is a methodological principle of law, not an actual tool for discerning truth from falsehood.
Consequently, using that as an argument on PoFo makes no sense.
For our non-American friends. In a criminal case our system requires that the allegations be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a deliberately high standard. The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.
In a civil case, and these women could bring one, the standard is very different. The jury decides on the preponderance of evidence. Like tipping a scale if 51% of the evidence favors one side and 49% favors the other the jury decides for the 51%.
IF I apply that standard here I can decide that the eyewitness accounts of several women that Moore frequently behaved this way may push the scales against him even though it is not proved that he did anything.
I am sorry that women face so great a burden. I am not sorry that the state faces the same burden when I am falsely accused of burglary.
There is no solution POD other than the OJ alternative. Faced with the decision by a jury that the state did not prove that OJ killed the two people, the parents of one of the victims sued OJ in civil court where the burden of proof was much less....and took him for everything he was worth.
Yes, I am very clear on how the justice system is set up and how this severely disadvantages women who have been sexually assaulted.
——————————————
Doug64 wrote:Yes, a standard defense tactic in sexual assault cases is to call the character of the victim into question, in order to cast doubt on her victim status.
So we can say that in a majority of sexual assault trials, the victim has their repuation tarnished.
Since the number of false rape allegations is much smaller than the number of sexual assault trials, and since the number of men who actually have their repuation tarnished is only a small percentage of these, the number of men who have their repuation tarnished by false rape allegations is far smaller than the number of women who have their reputations tarnished after being sexually assaulted.
Please do not post whole articles about irrelevant stuff when replying to me. It just means I have to spend more time erasing stuff than actually replying to the important points.