Dennis Prager, moral paragon

[_Res Ipsa]

If you want to know I think, ask me. But don’t try and push your idiotic, cartoonish view of liberals onto me. that's’s just dishonest BS.

Perhaps you can educate me on this.

1. Why do statute of limitations exist in criminal court? Who decided that this was a good idea and why?

Statutes of limitation do not exist just in criminal cases -- they exist in civil courts as well. They are documented as far back as Roman law. I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know who the first person was that decided they are a good idea or why.

Statutes of limitation function as an arbitrary limit on the ability of the state to deprive someone who has violated laws of their property or liberty. They function similarly for civil cases in law -- arbitrarily limiting someone who has been damaged by another from moving money from the perpetrator's bank account to the victim's.

I describe them as arbitrary for a couple of reasons. First, the limitation has nothing to do with the quality of evidence in a particular case. I might have inconvertible proof that you were at fault in a traffic accident that left me a paraplegic, but if I miss the deadline by a day, I'm SOL. At the same time, if I have only the shakiest of evidence but file one day earlier, I get my day in court.

Second, the length of the deadlines are arbitrary. They have the length they do because some legislative body at some time passed a statute with the limitation in it. Some offenses have no limitation. Others are a year or two. In my state, we have a special statute of limitations just for faulty construction. Why? Because developers and contractors donate lots of money in state elections.

Different justifications are offered for having statutes of limitation, each of which can be debated in theory and application. However, there is a feature of statutes that folks tend to forget about. Nearly all statutes recognize that under some circumstance people have very good reasons for not coming forward with valid claims. In those situations, the statues is "tolled" -- the time either does not start to run or the time is "paused." So, even if an offense has, say, a five-year statute, the fact that five years has passed from the date of the offense doesn't mean that the statute has run.

I don't find the existence of statutes of limitation of particular relevance in the political arena, where the issue is not depriving an individual of liberty or property, but whether they should hold a position of trust with the government. In political discourse, it's fine to argue about the relevance of a specific fact, but having the government put arbitrary limits on what people can talk about or think about when deciding who should wield governmental power is antithetic to our political system.

[_Res Ipsa]

No, you’re not making the slightest attempt to understand. You’re disingenuously making up a bunch of crap that I didn’t say and attributing it to me. I’ll say it again: if you want to understand why women don’t report, read what women say. If you want to know I think, ask me. But don’t try and push your idiotic, cartoonish view of liberals onto me. that's’s just dishonest BS.

Well, perhaps they don't report is because they have various reasons to not report? But those reasons, by themselves, don't point to their allegations being true or false. The problem with your insinuation is that it takes a very, very serious matter and reduces it to #justbelieveher.

I didn't "insinuate" anything. That's you. It's weird to see how often you do this and, at the same time, accuse others of doing it. When women are surveyed and asked why they didn't report a sexual assault, there is no reason to reject what they say out of hand unless you live by the creed "bitches be lying." There are volumes and volumes of reports on why women don't report sexual assault. All I've said is that, if someone wants to know why women don't report, rather than make up their motivations for them out of nothing but smoke and BS, they should start by listening to what they say.

I don't really know what your motivations are to want to rush to the defense of women in this case, they're probably pretty altruistic,

Rushing to the defense of women? Because I've expressed the perfectly ordinary positions that (1) accusation of a fairly serious crime should be investigated; and (2) if you want to know why someone does something, you should start by asking them, that's "Rushing to the defense of women?" Maybe this is news to you, Doc, but I don't take a position based on what team someone bats for. Sexual assault has been a difficult crime for our legal system to address for lots longer than I've been alive. There are very understandable reasons for that if you'd stop hyperventilating about "teh menz" and take a couple steps back and think about the whole landscape.

...but whether or not they're subjected to scrutiny, however tough or however delicate, you're talking about an accusation that immediately turns the accused's world upside down.

The accused is branded a rapist on a mere allegation, their reputation is invariably destroyed, their career is tarnished if not outright destroyed, and even if they exonerate themselves they're never the same.

If a woman makes an allegation, but doesn't file a report that's her business. She's free to stop right there. God bless her. But a man has every_single_right to defend himself, his life, his family from a soul destroying rape accusation.

Of course he does. I've never said he doesn't. But you're talking as if accusations of other crimes never affect the accused's life. They do. They cost people jobs, marriages, etc. every day. Try having your employer falsely accuse you of stealing. Or the cops falsely accuse you of selling drugs. You know who's lives are really impacted? Death row inmates. The number of innocent people that have been sent to death row is shocking. The examples of provably innocent people who have actually been executed are unforgivable. Now, I'm not arguing that two wrongs make a right. But I'm suggesting that your hyperventilation over the effect of a false rape accusation that doesn't result in a guilty verdict is way over the top.

This is why due process is an amazing thing. I'm all for rapists being outed, charged, prosecuted, and if found guilty sent straight to jail. The problem is the other side where women who make false allegations don't face a commensurate punishment, despite ruining someone's life over it. They often get away with it. Men who are falsely accused don't get away with it. They wear that scarlet R for life. That needs to change.

Seriously, you're going to wear out that fainting couch.

Now, before you trot the old and tired argument that only x amount of rape allegations are found to be false please read this:

Now there you go again. Why do you think you know what I'm going to argue? Your mind reading sucks.

[Reddit links deleted]

Finally, I should state for the record that I don't believe that the numbers of women who've been raped equal or are less than men who've been falsely accused. Obviously the numbers are much higher, in my opinion.

Yeah, in fact you should have stated that a long time ago. I think it's the most important thing you've posted in this or any other discussion of sexual assault here. Would you mind unpacking why you think this is obviously true?

What I think we can't lose in all of this is a sense of innoncent until proven guilty and due process. This current climate of allegations = guilt, and you know it is, all you have to do is read the articles or look at the comments on any given thread and the accused is assumed guilty just as much as the accuser is assumed to be making things up.

- Doc

The traditional climate (as opposed to the current climate) around allegations of sexual assault can best be summarized as:

1. Bitch is lying.
2. Bitch wanted it.
3. Bitch deserved it.

Due process and innocent until proven guilty are both mechanisms we use to promote justice. If you are all for seeing that rapists get sent to jail, then don't you think it would be important to design a system of justice that encourages women and girls who have been raped to report? Do you think we have that here? How many rapists should we let go free in order to protect one man's reputation? I'm not suggesting there are any easy answers. But reflexively branding women who say they were sexually assaulted as liars seems to me to be a piss poor way of addressing the issue.

[Guest]

How many rapists should we let go free in order to protect one man's reputation?

Can you clarify the question? Why should the rapists go free in order to protect the reputation of an innocent man?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Of course he does. I've never said he doesn't. But you're talking as if accusations of other crimes never affect the accused's life. They do. They cost people jobs, marriages, etc. every day. Try having your employer falsely accuse you of stealing. Or the cops falsely accuse you of selling drugs.

Do you have some statistics?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Because three independent women's testimony doesn't constitute good evidence for you? Plus many others coming out to say he's lying about drinking? How many women would it take?

It's fair to say there's no proof he did it, but there's plenty of good evidence.

The word of two female scientists is good evidence, but we must be careful because the bandwagon effect is a possibility.

[Guest]

They often get away with it. Men who are falsely accused don't get away with it. They wear that scarlet R for life. That needs to change.

We live in a complicated world. Things are not black or white. Some women are victims of a false memory, do you believe women should go to jail for having a false memory? Others simply forget they consented. Do you think women should go to jail for forgetting?

Just watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGMi0UtvTIc

[_Res Ipsa]

2. Does the timing of her claim make any difference in the scales of justice as they exist in in your mind?

I think it's a piece of information to be considered along with everything else. I don't think it's determinative of either what happened at the time or whether it's fair to consider it in connection with Kavanaugh's confirmation.

3. How reliable is eye witness testimony in your legal experience? Is a false memory more likely to be created now or 35 years after the incident?

That's one of the dirty little secrets about our legal system. Eye-witness testimony is generally less reliable than other evidence. But juries uniformly trust eye-witness testimony more than other evidence. On top of that, expert testimony about the reliability of eye-witness testimony is inadmissible. As I understand the research, memory generally becomes less accurate over time. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that all memories over a certain age are "false." I remember throwing a punch at Herb in the fall of 1975. We were at a football game at Memorial Stadium. I can't remember who the other team was, what the date was, where we were sitting in the stands, or what we were wearing. My date was there, but I have no idea whether she'd remember it today. I also don't remember what she was wearing. If someone had asked me those questions the next day, the odds of me remembering those details would have been much better. I'm sure you can think of examples from your high school days that have been confirmed by others since the incident but for which you have no recollection of lots of details.

4. I'm really not as much an eye for eye, tooth for tooth individual in my view of justice. I do believe we should be seeking to rehabilitate criminals. Sometimes we punish ourselves more than we punish the criminal when we lock them up or impose astronomical court and prison costs upon the taxpayer. But I don't see a law that allows people to make sexual assault claims 30 or 40 years later very helpful in achieving justice. Laws like this seem to be the opposite of rehabilitation or even in the interest of protecting society. If you don't like his politics admit that's the reason and pursue that.

Well, I favor rehabilitation myself. By the time we get all the information we are going to get on this Kavanaugh thing, it's very possible that my answers to the following two questions will be different: (1) Did K assault Ford? (2) Should K be criminally charged with assaulting Ford?

Justice is a broad concept that requires thinking about issues from lots of angles. The worst part is, things that may seem to promote justice when considered in a vacuum may actually promote injustice when considered in context. In the best of all possible worlds, where society and the justice system do not discourage girls and women from reporting sexual assault, a statute of limitation may promote justice. But in a system where, for example, a man knows he can sexually assault a woman and stands a high chance of never being accused, let alone prosecuted, a statue of limitation may not be just.

[_Res Ipsa]

How many rapists should we let go free in order to protect one man's reputation?

Can you clarify the question? Why should the rapists go free in order to protect the reputation of an innocent man?

It's rhetorical.

Sexual assault cases can often come down to he said/she said. If the charge must be proved by "beyond reasonable doubt," then we should expect a significant percentage in cases where the result is "not guilty" simply due to failure to meet the burden of proof. The effect is to let rapists go free. If we tack on a punishment for the accuser simply because the case doesn't meet the burden of proof in a criminal case, we would expect more women who actually have been raped to stay silent rather than take on the risk of being punished. That means more rapists go free. In general, if we do anything that discourages girls or women with legitimate claims from reporting them, the effect will be to let more rapists go free.

[_Res Ipsa]

Of course he does. I've never said he doesn't. But you're talking as if accusations of other crimes never affect the accused's life. They do. They cost people jobs, marriages, etc. every day. Try having your employer falsely accuse you of stealing. Or the cops falsely accuse you of selling drugs.

Do you have some statistics?

Nope, just examples.

[Guest]

It's rhetorical.

Sexual assault cases can often come down to he said/she said. If the charge must be proved by "beyond reasonable doubt," then we should expect a significant percentage in cases where the result is "not guilty" simply due to failure to meet the burden of proof. The effect is to let rapists go free. If we tack on a punishment for the accuser simply because the case doesn't meet the burden of proof in a criminal case, we would expect more women who actually have been raped to stay silent rather than take on the risk of being punished. That means more rapists go free. In general, if we do anything that discourages girls or women with legitimate claims from reporting them, the effect will be to let more rapists go free.

I understand, but it has to be beyond reasonable doubt/ Current estimates show that 2 to 10 percent of all rape accusations are false, but that percentage may go up. It is a concern.

Rape is a horrible crime, but spending decades in prison for something you didn't do is probably worse than getting raped. I myself would rather die. Our justice system has to keep the "beyond reasonable doubt". So if there is no evidence for the crime, no witnesses, and no evidence of trauma, should courts rely on the accusers testimony?

False memories can and do happen. See Dr. Travis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGMi0UtvTIc

Sexual assault cases can often come down to he said/she said.

Thankfully we have the science to make us less dependent on eye witness testimony. Witnesses are simply very unreliable. The solution is to advance our science.