Comments on: “To act as though every accusation must be true harms the overall credibility of assault claims.”

By: David C

David C — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:54:31 +0000

In reply to Walter Olson. Yeah, it's a total opposite. But if we always believe the accuser in campus rape cases, and we run into the issue of "gee, the person we are supposed to believe sometimes lies, and that makes it difficult to maintain this attitude in future cases," don't we also run into that problem when it comes to criminal cases where the accused is supposed to be presumed innocent but is often guilty?

In fact it is closer to the opposite, demanding that exculpatory evidence be ignored as opposed to demanding that inculpatory evidence be of high enough quality to persuade completely

If the issue is that we are ALWAYS supposed to believe, even to the point of ignoring all contrary evidence, then yeah, that's something different.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:32:15 +0000

Not sure what objection you’re raising here. The insistence that accusers in sexual assault cases should always be believed is nothing at all like the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. In fact it is closer to the opposite, demanding that exculpatory evidence be ignored as opposed to demanding that inculpatory evidence be of high enough quality to persuade completely.

By: David C

David C — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:27:01 +0000

Moreover, she points out, an “always believe” premise in the end undercuts the cause of vindicating true accusations:

Does that also happen with the presumption of innocence/proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal cases? If not, how is it different?

By: Wfjag

Wfjag — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:22:51 +0000

Principles of Progressive education:

1. Ideology trumps reality.

There are no additional principles, only corollaries.

By: Gerard M Delaney

Gerard M Delaney — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:57:05 +0000

Fran’s Kafka, call your office.