LogFAQs > #909159990

GreenKnight127 posted...

However, what I am also saying is that due process is a thing and men shouldn't be seen as guilty by default just because some woman said something happened years ago. It shouldn't be some fucking race for the guy to try and clear his name. No. SHE needs to prove a rape/assault/harassment occurred.

I'm sorry, "she" needs to prove this occurred?

Fucking why? She's not an investigator. She has absolutely no tools or authority to do that, and even if she did the results wouldn't be considered admissible because of her glaring conflict of interest. That's the entire reason why we have investigative bodies - like the FBI - in the first place, and it's exactly why she and the Democrats are asking for an investigation to take place.

Again, you're conflating standards here. If you're putting the guy behind bars, yeah, you need to prove that the rape happened. But that's not what we're talking about here. Again, Kavanaugh is not owed anything in this process - not the nomination, not a fair-and-speedy trial, nothing. The senators could vote him down because they don't like his tie, that's their right.

In that case, I am not particularly bothered by the idea of Kavanaugh's nomination being denied because there is a credible allegation of sexual misconduct, regardless of whether or not it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is especially true given the Republicans' recalcitrance to actually due their job and exercise some investigative muscle into the situation. They could subpoena Mark Judge or ask the FBI to investigate further, but they're not. Not because the allegations lack substance, of course, but for nakedly political reasons - if they don't confirm Kavanaugh now (or, worse, if it turns out he *did* try to rape Ford and they have to reject his nomination), they risk losing the senate and, with it, the ability to nominate and confirm a justice of their choice. See above for exactly how much of a shit I give about that particular predicament - the Republicans made this bed of shit, they can fucking well sleep in it.

The senate is supposed to put the goodwill of the country over political affiliation. Ensuring that they're not giving a rapist a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is absolutely part of their job description, so the argument that it's politically untenable to them doesn't fly with me. And I'd be saying the exact same thing if it was a Democrat nominee being vetted by a Democratic senate just before an election.

GreenKnight127 posted...

But for some strange reason, all the rules have been flipped around. The media reports on ALLEGATIONS as though they are confirmed fact.

They do that with all crimes, though. "Woman accused of murdering husband goes on trial tomorrow", "Three teenagers charged with burglary after home invasion gone wrong", so on and so forth.

This is not anything unique to sex crimes. If you want to switch to a system like exists in some European countries, where the media are denied the right to report a suspect's name unless they have been convicted, so be it, but that's not the system the US operates under today (and, given how much some sects of the population - conservatives especially - would view such a system as "focusing on the rights of the criminals instead of the rights of the victims", I'm skeptical you'd ever be able to pass such a system into law).
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!