Beren wrote:What do you claim then? Let's make it clear finally...
I basically said that I don't believe Moore is innocent, however, the burden of proof is on the women and that Moore doesn't have to prove anything
in a court room. But politics and political forums are different, of course. There is no need for a presumption of innocence.
What is the difference you may ask.
As I explained to Drlee:
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.
This shifts the burden of proof onto the women targeted by Moore, assumes a fact that is not actually a given (i.e. Moore’s innocence), and ignores the very real possibility that Moore is guilty and that it cannot be proven.
It also ignores the reality faced by women who come forward about sexual assault: their reputations will almost certainly be attacked and questioned in the media and during the trial. There are strong disincentives and negative repercussions from doing this, and it makes little sense to assume that women do this just because.
TLDR: presumption of innocence is good in court, but bad in debate.