Reflections: Innocent until Proven Guilty!
In America, Sundays are famous (or infamous, if you prefer ...) for the all of the "talking heads" discussing the past week's news events. This past week was different. Arguably a "watershed" moment in American history. What?
I am talking about the ongoing U. S. Senate confirmations hearing for Brett Kavanaugh to become the latest Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. The Sunday talk show highlight being the drama of this past Thursday's testimony of the two principals - Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford ...
I want to talk about a key aspect of the unfolding drama in this post.

All of the details aside, at the heart of these hearings is an unprecedented attempt to turn the subject of this post upside down. At the foundation of our system of justice is the following premise:
We are innocent until proven guilty!
As an essential corollary, the burden of this proof rests on a person's accuser, as we have the "presumption of innocence," until then. A historic effort is currently underway to turn this upside down!
I am going to briefly go through some "basics," before I get to the main point of my post:
The Republic's Founding
The Constitution of the United States is one of the great documents in history establishing our American form of government and its fundamental laws, which guarantee certain basic rights for its citizens.
An essential part of it was the creation of three co-equal branches of government - the executive (President), the legislative (the House and Senate), and the judicial (Supreme Court) branches.
The President has nominated a person, Brett Kavanaugh, to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. As part of this process, the U. S. Senate must have a majority vote in favor of his nomination, before he will be seated.
Safety and Security
This American would argue this is no greater responsibility our government has than to protect the safety and security of its citizens. Full stop. Period!
Aside from protection against the military invasion of a foreign adversary, can it be argued there is anything more basic to these fundamental responsibilities than our system of justice? I don't think so ...
The most sacred principle of the American justice system is presumption of innocence - that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. I am no legal scholar, but I believe there are at least two essential components to this:
Due Process of Law
The Burden of Proof
Due Process of Law
The 5th amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees "due process of law" to all persons. This requires orderly legal procedures be followed to establish guilt. These orderly legal procedures ensure, among other things, a fair and impartial trial is held and a verdict reached, on innocence or guilt, by a jury of a person's peers.

In these trials, as one of their constitutional rights, the presumed innocent person need say absolutely nothing, if they deem that to be in their best interest.
The 14th amendment to the U. S. Constitution covers "equal protection under the law," so there can be no doubt as to the fact all Americans are "under the law." Never above it!
Burden of Proof
In the required orderly legal proceeding, i.e. the trial, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, a person's guilt. As an obviously adversarial proceeding, the prosecution is the side that bears the burden of proof of providing evidence of guilt.

Otherwise, the accused is innocent and remains free from being "deprived of life, liberty, and property."
Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Process
In spite of the best efforts of his political adversaries, the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was moving towards confirmation. Until ... What?
A politically explosive charge was leveled at him of sexual misconduct. Initially based on a "secret letter" from an anonymous source, it eventually culminated in a person stepping forward to become Kavanaugh's primary accuser - Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

It is not my intent to go into the details of the accuser's charges. For the subject of this post, I propose the following outline of what one U. S. Senator has called, "an intergalactic freak show", in what has unfolded before the American people:
There is hardly a more emotionally explosive accusation one can make against another, than for a woman to accuse a man of sexual misconduct, up to and including, rape.
The now famously cited incident allegedly took place about 36 years ago. At a time and in a location the accuser can't recall. While both parties were in high school.
She can recall some of the people who might be familiar with the incident. They have all provided legal documents, punishable by a felony charge if proven to be false, saying they know nothing about the incident.
The defendant swears he is innocent and would never do such a thing. Many, many people, both men and women, have come forward to testify that from childhood forward to the present, they cannot imagine the man they know and have always known could be guilty of such a charge.
As serious as the charge is, almost everyone agrees it is simply not possible for there ever to be a formal legal proceeding, as required to establish guilt. Every prosecutor, on both sides of the political "divide," has said they would not attempt it. They have no thought they could prevail in providing the required burden of proof, to establish guilt.
Further, aside from "burden of proof" evidence, no corroborating evidence has come to light, in spite of extensive efforts to produce it. Surely, then, by all reasonable standards, Brett Kavanaugh is innocent. Right?
No!! At least, not "in the court of public opinion," for far too many of my fellow Americans. Driven not by unbiased facts, presented in "an orderly legal proceeding," but instead by the every-growing flames of passion, burning out of control in public.
Instead, we have now before us, the following:
A loud and growing "chorus" of activists insisting Kavanaugh must be guilty, simply on the basis of a woman's allegation. No legal proceeding to protect him. No evidence to convict him. Just her accusation is sufficient ...
At least one sitting U. S. Senator publicly stating Kavanaugh needs to "prove" his innocence!
Kavanaugh's powerful testimony of the damage being done to him and his family by this process and calling into question why anyone, in the future, would ever be willing to endure it, if allowed to stand.
At least one sitting U. S. Representative publicly stating, if Kavanaugh somehow still manages to obtain confirmation, he will lead the effort to have him impeached! Why? Because, of course, he must be guilty!
What we are witnessing is a deliberate attempt to destroy a man, by whatever means necessary, to obtain a political objective.
How have we come to this place in American history? Of great concern to this American, isn't that people are attempting to turn our justice system upside down. It is the fact they are even remotely close to being successful!
And should they be successful, what do you think the future holds for you? Would you like to say, perhaps, "Well, at least I am on the 'right' side of this issue?" Really? I respectfully suggest you think again.
"Opening this door" has unknown consequences, but it is unimaginable they can be deemed to be good over time. Who will control the "mob rule" to which you have now acquiesced?
In your "favor" today? Who will control these passions the next time, as "gasoline" is poured on "the fire" of "burning down" whatever is deemed to be in the way of "progress" tomorrow?
Will it still be in your favor? Or will you now be subject to the flames and "burned to the ground," as those who have been victims of this new form of "justice" before you?
Perhaps a powerful voice, from the past, will be of some benefit to, as you reflect on these questions for yourself and those whom you hold dear.
Historic Warning
The following quote is based on the author's perception of the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
Pastor Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor, an outspoken foe of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany:
"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist""Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist""Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist""Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew""Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me."

Yes, yes, dear reader, I am well aware this context does not match the focus of this post. Or does it?
In the broader context of tyrannical rule, I personally believe it does:
"Cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."
What does America's future hold, with ever bolder and stronger attempts being made to overturn a fundamental part of what protects us all - our system of justice?
Would you like to simply argue, "Well, it doesn't affect me, so ..." Exactly. And the reason I presented you with the quote above.

Maybe "today" it doesn't affect you. Yet. What about tomorrow?
Closing
As Americans, "we the people" still ultimately hold the power to elect our representatives. Note well I did not say leaders. I said representatives.
"We the people" will vote early in November, on who will represent us, in the future. Will we allow what has and is taking place to pass, without consequence to those responsible for it?
We don't have long to wait to find out the answer. God help us come up with the right one, in sufficient numbers, to send a resounding and powerful message of rebuke to those who would actively work to destroy the foundation of our justice system - innocent until proven guilty!
Respectfully,
Steemian @roleerob
Posted using Busy.org and “immutably enshrined in the blockchain” on Sunday, 30 September 2018!
If you enjoyed this post, perhaps you would also find these posts of interest / value:
- Liberty: Land of the Free, Home of the Brave
- Observations: Words Matter
- Prosperity: Freedom and Opportunity for Ordinary People
- Observations: Gratitude and the Simple Things
Ah. Truly the trial of the decade, as I recall, and to this day there are still people I know of (almost none of whom are US citizens, making me wonder what they claim to know or why they should care, much less why their views should matter) who try and claim that Kavanaugh should have been jailed, and when I ask "on what charge," they invariably look at me like I fell from Mars and ask "are you saying it's okay that he raped a woman?" The fact that this allegation of rape has almost no credible evidence never seems to enter their minds.
Frankly, I am in agreement that the attempt to steamroll Brett Kavanaugh (on the basis of allegations that were so glaringly obviously prepared by political opponents of the man who appointed Kavanaugh) was a sickening politicization of the US Justice System, which -at the risk of sounding trite- for all its flaws is still the excelsior among global judiciary systems. However, in a truly impartial justice system (as ours claims to be), even the devil has an advocate, if you'll forgive a small bon mot. Ergo, advocatus diabolii would like to cross examine the witness here.
Brett Kavanaugh had two major issues working against him.
The first, which you mentioned, is the nature of the accusations against him. While TV's Law and Order franchise isn't known for its accuracy, one of the few things they actually got right was a line in the title sequence of SVU: "in the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous." There is a school of thought (a highly flawed one if you want my view) that because these crimes are considered sicker than others, that even unproven suspicions of them should bear a consequence.
While I would consider that to be one of the most counterintuitive things I've ever heard (if anything, the severity of the accusations should heighten the burden of proof, given that the social stigma of being labelled a sex offender goes well beyond the courtroom or the jail; and further, if one's future can be destroyed by an unproven allegation then, well...), it is nonetheless a commonly held view in America, and this, unavoidably, put him under greater fire during the time the allegations were being made, even though the case against him eventually collapsed.
The second is a bit pricklier.
The law is built on the principle, as you rightly stated, that no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law (with "due process" of course including a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt which falls upon the accuser, rather than the accused). However, is an office one has not yet been sworn into, their property?
This is a question that has not been rightly settled, and there is precedent to ask it. Let's change the situation slightly. Let's say Kavanaugh was being appointed to a national security sensitive office, and the allegations made against him were of a nature that would have endangered national security. Even if he had been cleared, the very suspicion of the allegations would have cast enough doubt upon his credibility that it would have been deemed dangerous to appoint him to the office.
Put more simply, even if there is not enough proof for a criminal conviction, is it still prudent to withhold appointment to office based upon suspicion?
The most worrisome thing is that this question has yet to be clearly answered.
Now then, as I said, this is merely "Devil's Advocate." I am quite convinced that Ford's allegations were absolute nonsense, drummed up out of pure petulant spite and supported by the Democrat Party for purely political reasons in a glaringly obvious hijacking of the court system for political obstructionism, and the fact that a US legislator had the audacity (and showed the ignorance of our legal precepts) to claim Kavanaugh had to "prove his innocence" shows how dangerous it is for the ones sworn to uphold the Constitution to be so unaware of what is in it. The clearing of Kavanaugh's name after this absolute farce of a case against him was blown away, is the true fulfillment of justice. Christine Blasey Ford saw that someone she didn't like was appointed to a high office by a president she didn't vote for, so she made a pathetic attempt to defame him, and an equally petty political faction saw in this attempt an opportunity to advance themselves, and God-be-Thanked, it fell apart.
However, some perspective is also in order, in case a similar situation ever comes up where the evidence is not as cut-and-dry: not appointing someone to an office to which they have not yet been approved by the Senate, is not the same as finding someone guilty, and we need a clearer definition of what does and does not constitute deprivation of life, liberty or property.
Yes @patriamreminisci …
… absolutely correct, in my opinion. For reasons I won’t go into here, I certainly understand the “especially heinous” part, but … That does not justify being more … uhhh … “liberal” with how we apply the protections of due process of the law. As you rightly say, given the damage which can be done by simply throwing out an allegation, if anything, the standard should be higher still (not really possible …).
Amen! That is the heart of the matter, to this “old warhorse.” On the basis of an accusation alone, to attempt to justify turning our justice system upside down is incomprehensible to me. But … I no longer delude myself to think people like this care one whit about defending our Constitution. Even though elected to one of the highest positions of power and authority in the country based on it …
I am old enough to have “seen this movie” before and that was the destruction of the reputation of a good man – Robert Bork. His adversaries’ charges were never countered effectively nor with much (at least comparatively, when looking at the Kavanaugh hearings …) enthusiasm and / or conviction was it really even attempted. Why? No way to know, but if the thought was “our” sense of justice was somehow going to prevail and “win the day,” that was proven terribly wrong. That is why I put Edmund Burke’s well known quote in this post.
Today, we have President Donald Trump. While I have my reservations about the man, his willingness to go all out in defense of what he believes in wins my admiration and respect. Had he shown the same level of … uhhh … “enthusiasm” that Ronald Reagan showed for defending Robert Bork, I seriously doubt Kavanaugh would have survived the ordeal to which he was subjected.
I’ll close with just a quick challenge of the point you make about the position being filled having a bearing on the way an allegation should be viewed. To me, it should not matter. The adversaries (and they appear to be a large and growing “mob” and all that word entails …) of the U. S. justice system are already in “overdrive” in their attempts to have a “guilty” verdict rendered by public opinion as sufficient justification for all kinds of things. They cannot be allowed to become consistently successful. When the American people fail to hold those responsible accountable, then they are undermining their own liberties. A historic example of this being cited in this post as well …
Thank you for investing your time in commenting on this @patriamreminisci. As much as this is possible in your present circumstances, have a good day!
Curated for #informationwar (by @commonlaw)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 8,000 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 200+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 11
Ways you can help the @informationwar
Not being in the US, I only heard about this in passing as social media sent it around the world. So I didn't really know the details, just that an accusation had been made.
I believe you are right to be concerned that law is being turned on its head. It's already been happening in SA for a while and when it comes to any traffic offense, the onus is on you to prove your innocence, which is not easy when the word of anyone in our government and police departments is worth infinitely more than yours. Only those who can afford good legal representation can fight false accusation, everyone else may as well just pay up or face new concocted claims if they do manage to prove their innocence.
Posted using Partiko Android
Whether large of small, any time a charge can be made and that alone stand as the basis for rendering a "Guilty!" verdict, people under such a system are in trouble. Deep trouble, if it becomes the "norm." No matter where they live, as I believe the truths behind what I write about in this post to be universal ...
Thank you for investing your time in this comment @minismallholding. For the sake of us all, I hope we are all consistently "fighting the good fight" to maintain our liberties, no matter where we may live on this good earth.
Hi @roleerob!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 3.123 which ranks you at #8797 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 477 contributions, your post is ranked at #446.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server