I consider U.S. Sen. Susan Collin’s speech in support of the Kavanaugh nomination to be the finest speech delivered by a member of Congress in my lifetime.
Collins eloquently and persuasively discussed every point that needed to be discussed. Only in one respect do I dissent.
I believe that before any American’s life or reputation is destroyed at any public hearing by an allegation of criminal misconduct, the accuser has the burden of proving that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.
In every criminal proceeding, the judge is required to instruct the jury as follows:
"The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him. This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdict and is not overcome unless from all the evidence in this case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
"The State has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden remains on the state throughout the case. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence."Our U.S. Supreme Court has held that the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are fundamental to our system of justice and essential to due process.
Now a substantial wing of the Democratic Party would rewrite that rule to read that in any case where a woman charges a man with sexual misconduct
"The accused is conclusively presumed guilty of the charge against him.This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during deliberations on the verdict and cannot be overcome. You should disregard all witnesses and all other evidence that the accused presents to establish his innocence because it is easy to imagine why the accused might be lying.
"The accuser’s credibility must be afforded greater credibility because it is far more difficult to come up with any plausible reason any woman might be lying. Indeed, the accuser’s credibility may not even be questioned."
Is it really better that 100 innocent men be punished than one guilty man escape?
"The accuser’s credibility must be afforded greater credibility because it is far more difficult to come up with any plausible reason any woman might be lying. Indeed, the accuser’s credibility may not even be questioned."
Is it really better that 100 innocent men be punished than one guilty man escape?
If you are man, is this fundamentally transformed America in which you wish to live?
If you’re a woman, is this the shining new America in which you want your father, your husband and your sons to live?
If a man whose testimony is corroborated by three witnesses, has less credibility than a woman whose testimony is utterly uncorroborated, how many additional witnesses does the man need? Two? Twenty-five? Five-thousand?
How many more witnesses are needed before he can overcome the presumption of guilt? Or is it an irrefutable presumption?
If you’re a woman, is this the shining new America in which you want your father, your husband and your sons to live?
If a man whose testimony is corroborated by three witnesses, has less credibility than a woman whose testimony is utterly uncorroborated, how many additional witnesses does the man need? Two? Twenty-five? Five-thousand?
How many more witnesses are needed before he can overcome the presumption of guilt? Or is it an irrefutable presumption?
If women never lie, and if men never tell the truth, why waste time on trials?
If this is the sparkling new order that the progressive left wants, I want no part of it. I want a system of due process where everyone criminally accused is presumed innocent. Where accused and accuser start out equally in terms of credibility.
Where no one should be found guilty unless the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where accuser, accused and all witnesses face each other, and equally face rigorous cross-examination. And I am not willing to gut any clause of our Bill of Rghts to favor a particular class of accusers or accuseds, or for reasons of political correctness, or to appease any mob.
Our traditional criminal justice system reaches its conclusions on evidence, and the reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. Sympathy, passion, raw emotion, bias, and hatred have no place in the system bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.
Our Supreme Court has held that not every hearing requires all the safeguards deemed essential to a criminal trial. The full due process required during a criminal trial may not be required in a hearing for a zoning variance. But the court has held that the due process commensurate with the proceeding must be accorded to each hearing.
At a minimum, due process requires a neutral judge (or hearing officer), notice of what the proceeding is about, and the right to confront (and cross-examine) witnesses.
Since 1215, people have fought not to be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process. Is a man’s good name and reputation not part of his life and property? Or are they subject to destruction for perceived “greater good?”
In his Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky wrote
If this is the sparkling new order that the progressive left wants, I want no part of it. I want a system of due process where everyone criminally accused is presumed innocent. Where accused and accuser start out equally in terms of credibility.
Where no one should be found guilty unless the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where accuser, accused and all witnesses face each other, and equally face rigorous cross-examination. And I am not willing to gut any clause of our Bill of Rghts to favor a particular class of accusers or accuseds, or for reasons of political correctness, or to appease any mob.
Our traditional criminal justice system reaches its conclusions on evidence, and the reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. Sympathy, passion, raw emotion, bias, and hatred have no place in the system bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.
Our Supreme Court has held that not every hearing requires all the safeguards deemed essential to a criminal trial. The full due process required during a criminal trial may not be required in a hearing for a zoning variance. But the court has held that the due process commensurate with the proceeding must be accorded to each hearing.
At a minimum, due process requires a neutral judge (or hearing officer), notice of what the proceeding is about, and the right to confront (and cross-examine) witnesses.
Since 1215, people have fought not to be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process. Is a man’s good name and reputation not part of his life and property? Or are they subject to destruction for perceived “greater good?”
In his Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky wrote
“Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it. ... The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. ... He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”
Is that the America you want to live in? If the destruction of a good man is the means to your end, is that OK?
Is that the America you want to live in? If the destruction of a good man is the means to your end, is that OK?
Posted: QCOline.com October 11, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea
