The burden of proof and Kavanaugh

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Going into tomorrow’s hearing, I think we need to consider the notion of the burden of proof.

As you know, the burden of proof in criminal cases is proof beyond a reasonable doubt (99%+). The burden of proof in civil cases is preponderance of the evidence (50%+).

But Brett Kavanaugh is not on trial here. He is not facing the prospect of jail time. He’s not looking to be forced to pay money.

Indeed the outcome of his situation is not any sort of punishment at all, but rather a potential reward. He’s looking at receiving a high honor, one most jurists can only dream about, and one that carries great power and significance.

So before we reward Brett Kavanaugh it is our duty to consider his fitness.

And our duty carries a burden of proof of the claims made against him.

Because we’re dealing not with potential forced punishment but rather a potential reward and honor, we shouldn’t use either a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard or a preponderance of the evidence standard.

I would say the burden of proof here would be to consider whether there is a distinct possibility that he may have attempted to sexually assault someone at least once in his life. If there is even that distinct, realistic possibility that it could have happened, in good conscience we cannot let this man sit on the nation’s highest court.

I’m not sure what the numerical value to place on the distinct possibility burden of proof but I would probably say it would represent either a 25% to 33% likelihood that the accusations are true.

[beachbum bob]

1. no trial and no burden of proof. All Ford has to do is to appear and come off as CREDIBLE

the GOP is in a no-win scenario. Their "female prosecutor" is going to treat Ford as a criminal defendant to diminish her veracity and male GOP senators hopes that having a female besmirch another female, the stench won't rub off on them.

I highly doubt the democratic senators are going to go along, especially now with Ford offering up some new "witnesses" and the GOP will have to squash any and all talk about them.

IT WILL BE CIRCUS and I hope ford has the guts and stamina to persevere thru it

[mainstreetonce]

3. No

The woman tried to scream and he only stopped because they fell and she got away.

No, every man has not had that experience.

This was not attempted sex. It was serious assault.

No similar charges ever came up with Gorsuch.

Kavenaugh has a history.

[forthemiddle]

4. I was speaking about the generality in which the OP was written

In my mind, those accusations could be lobbed against anyone, if "distinct possibility" is the level we now need to reach.

As I said, I believe something horrible happened to Dr Ford. I am not sure about the second witness, only because the New York Times, and other entities reached out to "dozens of people" and they couldn't find even one person that witnessed it. And even she admits that she wasn't sure about the identity until after 6 days of talking with her attorney. If your not 100% sure, you don't put out the accusation.
If she comes up with more evidence I will think about it again.

[MrsCoffee]

5. How gracious of you.

Thankfully you don’t get to decide when, where, how a woman reveals her trauma.

I’m shocked I’m reading this tripe here.

[RobinA]

10. Tripe...uhm

It's only tripe if you have no respect for due process. For those of us who do, this situation is quite problematic on many levels. Why must everyone on DU these days resort to ad hominem attacks on people they don't agree with?

And before someone makes the argument that due process is not required here, I will respond by saying that for some of us, due process is a value, not a legal technicality. A very important value, the death of which has repercussions far beyond this situation.

[el_bryanto]

11. Well - Due Process doesn't really apply here though does it?

I mean he's not on trial as the OP stated - we are deciding whether or not to reward him with a high judicial seat. And be we i mean the nation. Does he deserve that reward? I would say no anyway, but this new information makes it doubly clear that he doesn't.

Bryant

[WillowTree]

6. For the sake of clarity, you're confusing the term "burden of proof" .......

.......with "standard of evidence". "Burden of proof" refers to the fact that the "burden" lies with the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused.

"Standard of evidence" refers to the level of proof required in a given situation. such as preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sorry. I'm just kind of a stickler for accuracy.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. You are correct

It’s the burden of proof to meet the requisite standard of evidence.

I would say that the burden is still on the accuser because any accusations without proof are just mere words. But the standard of evidence in this situation should be lower than in an actual trial, civil or criminal.

[WillowTree]

8. Well, I would think that it should at least be the level of "preponderance of evidence".

That's just 51% or better or, to put it another way, more likely than not. I wouldn't be willing to see anyone "hung out to dry" with less than that.

[Demsrule86]

9. If there is any chance it is true...don't vote for him...he should withdraw...no

he stands accused of gang rape. It is a lifetime appointment...get a different nominee. Also Kavanaugh should be impeached.