Dennis Prager, moral paragon

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

Of course the burden of proof in a criminal case has to be beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean we should kid ourselves about the effect of the burden of proof in many of these cases. Likewise, we shouldn't confuse the outcome of the judicial process with whether an assault actually occurred.

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?

Testimony is evidence. People keep ignoring that. If the issue is one of credibility, we leave that to the jury.

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

Who said they don't? Of course they do. The only way to be 100% sure to never, ever convict an innocent person is to never prosecute anyone.

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.

Or wish for a magic unicorn.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

There still needs to be something done to discourage women from using rape allegations as a weapon against political opponents or to otherwise get vengeance. There also needs to be something done to stop people like Al Sharpton the Duke 88 faculty, and Democratic politicians/district attorneys from stirring up racial and gender animus as they did with Crystal Mangum in the Duke rape case. Had these young men not had $2 million to pay attorneys they would probably be in jail now. You gotta think more than a few are victims of false accusations. If you can't punish a false witness, how can you rely on their testimony?

What? You don't think criminal prosecution for perjury is enough? You don't think defamation is enough? Hell, women get rape threats, death threats, harassment, etc. even when they make true accusations.

At the same time, I don't hear you express any concern about the perp who falsely denies the accusation, who lies through his teeth about the encounter, who destroys the reputation of his victim, on top of the damage done by the victim herself? Kinda strange isn't it that you only worry about false testimony when it's a woman?

[_Some Schmo]

At the same time, I don't hear you express any concern about the perp who falsely denies the accusation, who lies through his teeth about the encounter, who destroys the reputation of his victim, on top of the damage done by the victim herself? Kinda strange isn't it that you only worry about false testimony when it's a woman?

I know it can't always be the case, but when men vehemently drive this "false accusation" narrative, doesn't it feel like they're frightened of something... specific?

I've never been frightened that a woman would falsely accuse me of anything. Maybe it's because I attempt to treat them as people.

[_Res Ipsa]

At the same time, I don't hear you express any concern about the perp who falsely denies the accusation, who lies through his teeth about the encounter, who destroys the reputation of his victim, on top of the damage done by the victim herself? Kinda strange isn't it that you only worry about false testimony when it's a woman?

I know it can't always be the case, but when men vehemently drive this "false accusation" narrative, doesn't it feel like they're frightened of something... specific?

I've never been frightened that a woman would falsely accuse me of anything. Maybe it's because I attempt to treat them as people.

I dunno, Schmo. In my experience, people's reactions to dramatic events is all over the map. I've taken testimony from people whose demeanor was honest and sincere, but in fact were lying through their teeth. I've taken testimony from people who had a dishonest demeanor whose testimony was proven by objective evidence. It's very hard to accurately assess the truthfulness of testimony from the emotions displayed by the witness.

I place far more weight on the substance of the answers to the questions. In particular, I look for whether the witness gives answers that are responsive to the question. As a general matter, people who are concealing important information will try to tell as much of the truth as they can. When you observe a witness evading the question, refusing to answer, arguing with the questioner etc. instead answering straight-forward questions, those are all signs to me that the witness is likely concealing relevant facts by evading the question and responding with truthful but non responsive answers.

[_Some Schmo]

I dunno, Schmo. In my experience, people's reactions to dramatic events is all over the map. I've taken testimony from people whose demeanor was honest and sincere, but in fact were lying through their teeth. I've taken testimony from people who had a dishonest demeanor whose testimony was proven by objective evidence. It's very hard to accurately assess the truthfulness of testimony from the emotions displayed by the witness.

I don't doubt you here, but how often do these things happen? Are you saying it's hard to judge credibility generally?

I place far more weight on the substance of the answers to the questions. In particular, I look for whether the witness gives answers that are responsive to the question. As a general matter, people who are concealing important information will try to tell as much of the truth as they can. When you observe a witness evading the question, refusing to answer, arguing with the questioner etc. instead answering straight-forward questions, those are all signs to me that the witness is likely concealing relevant facts by evading the question and responding with truthful but non responsive answers.

Man, you just described every answer I heard come out of Kavanaugh's mouth today.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't doubt you here, but how often do these things happen? Are you saying it's hard to judge credibility generally?

I think it's hard to judge credibility through an observation of demeanor. The witness who won't look the questioner in the eye could very well be someone with Aspergers who is scrupulously honest. I've worked with lots of people who thought they could judge the truthfulness of a story through the witnesses demeanor. My own conclusion was that they suffered from a serious case of confirmation bias.

Just as an example, I have to be careful with K because he reminds me of some guys I met in law school who were the product of the same preppie culture as K, including the whole getting women drunk to get in their pants thing. But just because he reminds me of a couple of those guys, doesn't mean that he is those guys. And even if he were those guys, it doesn't mean he is lying. It's way too easy to project your own biases about how an innocent or a guilty person should act onto someone else. I don't think that's a reliable way of getting to the truth.

I place far more weight on the substance of the answers to the questions. In particular, I look for whether the witness gives answers that are responsive to the question. As a general matter, people who are concealing important information will try to tell as much of the truth as they can. When you observe a witness evading the question, refusing to answer, arguing with the questioner etc. instead answering straight-forward questions, those are all signs to me that the witness is likely concealing relevant facts by evading the question and responding with truthful but non responsive answers.

Man, you just described every answer I heard come out of Kavanaugh's mouth today.[/quote]

I only caught snippets. I heard one of the senators ask about blacking out or memory loss during drinking, and his response was something like "have you?" That kind of stuff would be a red flag for me.

[_EAllusion]

I'm trained to do abuse/neglect investigations for my local government. In training I've received from attorneys, I've received lots of tips for how various body language "tells" can tip me off about a person's honesty or dishonesty. I'm supposed to use that knowledge as a supplement to guide my questioning and form close-call judgments. The research is pretty clear that this is garbage practice and I don't listen at all to that advice, but the fact that it has been part of my training tells me people who matter absolutely believe it.

What you can say in Kavanaugh's defense is just like there's no exact way a truthful victim will behave, there's no exact way a person who is innocent will behave either. Kavanaugh had a rehearsed plan as indicated by how he gamed questions with deflected talking points, tried to dance and stall to run out hostile questioners' time, etc. But even if righteous anger was a conscious strategy, it doesn't tell you much of anything about whether that makes him more likely to be innocent or not. Guilty people act with righteous anger. Innocent people act with righteous anger. It tells you nothing.

[_Some Schmo]

I only caught snippets. I heard one of the senators ask about blacking out or memory loss during drinking, and his response was something like "have you?" That kind of stuff would be a red flag for me.

There was a moment during Blumenthal's questioning where he looked at the other committee members with an expression, You guys just heard that, right? It was funny because it mirrored my own reaction. I'll admit to bias though. I don't trust Kavanaugh as far as I could throw him. I've known a lot of liars in my life, and if he's not one, then I'm not sure about anyone.

[_EAllusion]

I only caught snippets. I heard one of the senators ask about blacking out or memory loss during drinking, and his response was something like "have you?" That kind of stuff would be a red flag for me.

There was a moment during Blumenthal's questioning where he looked at the other committee members with an expression, You guys just heard that, right? It was funny because it mirrored my own reaction. I'll admit to bias though. I don't trust Kavanaugh as far as I could throw him. I've known a lot of liars in my life, and if he's not one, then I'm not sure about anyone.

I think it's fair to say Kavanaugh is a liar. The instances of him being a shameless liar are plentiful. Even the whole "witnesses have refuted Ford" shtick that he repeated over and over even when it was not what he was asked is incredibly misleading. He's smart enough to know the difference between witnesses not remembering and that, but does not care. What allows us to conclude that are facts and context that you don't necessarily get just because of a tone or posture someone adopts.

[_Some Schmo]

I think it's fair to say Kavanaugh is a liar. The instances of him being a shameless liar are plentiful. Even the whole "witnesses have refuted Ford" shtick that he repeated over and over even when it was not what he was asked is incredibly misleading. He's smart enough to know the difference between witnesses not remembering and that, but does not care. What allows us to conclude that are facts and context that you don't necessarily get just because of a tone or posture someone adopts.

Yeah, good point. I was just sitting here considering my bias, and wondering if I need to rewatch what I saw through the lens of someone who trusts him. It's not like I haven't been influenced by relevant events in the last month.

I thought the demeanor of the senators themselves was relevant. The Democrats were all calm and asking simple questions, and the Repubs were going off on idiotic tirades about "the timeline of the revelation" and the "investigation they've already conducted." These guys aren't as good the actors they think they are.

What was particularly sickening was the last senator asking Kavanaugh about god and looking him in the eye. What a damned farce that was.