• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In a sexual harassment claim, what should be burden of proof?

Burden of proof for sexual harassment before taking adverse action?

  • Beyond Reasonable Doubt

    Votes: 14 42.4%

  • Substantially more likely then not

    Votes: 10 30.3%

  • Preponderance of evidence - 50.1 % likely

    Votes: 7 21.2%

  • Reason to believe - some evidence

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Plausibly possible

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    33
yankintx said:
I was a victim of sexual abuse at 16, courtesy of a family friend. For a variety of reasons I and my family decided against going to the police. I was a young gay man, terrified the authorities would claim I asked for it, his advances were not welcome.

I put it behind me and move forward. If I had discovered the perv was now being elevated to a position such as the SC I would speak out, it would be my responsibility. Now this was thirty years ago, I cant remember the date, but it happend!!

I can understand completely why these ladies never went to the authorities. Trump saying the incident could not have been that severe as she would have gone to the police is BS. This is coming from a man who feels he is entitled to grab others genitalia uninvited, and walk into female teens dressing rooms so he can get some titillation is disgusting. Birds of a feather molest together.

Find another nominee, this
guy is a no go.
Click to expand...

I am sorry for anyone who was molested in their youth. That is an abomination. Fear not, the punishment is coming. Since you broached it, I am comfortable writing about a Summer Camp I attended offered to inner-city kids, by the Jaycee's(not besmirching the organization, but the truth is what it is.). That camp was staffed entirely by molester's. Each male in that camp was visited and assaulted by those creeps. That is true.
That being said; I still require more than an accusation to determine guilt, don't you?
Regards,
CP
 
SDET said:
In an employment situation, what should be the burden of proof before taking adverse action against the accused and why?
Click to expand...

Proof?

I'd say that first there has to be some credible evidence. Then we can worry about proof.
 
noonereal said:
nothing like a mindless fallacy to prove one is cerebral and contemplative :roll:
Click to expand...

What a cheap out! If you have something other than sarcasm to make a point, roll it out. Save the sarcasm for those who respect your wit.
C'mon,...… We're waiting!
Regards,
CP
 
molten_dragon said:
In an employment situation, where there are no criminal charges being filed, I think there can be a scaling response to the level of proof. For example:

Beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser is lying? Fire that person immediately.
Preponderance of the evidence indicates the accuser is lying? Reprimand for the accuser. Remove the accuser from the accused's department/team, demoting them if necessary.
No evidence either way? Separate the two of them if possible, but no reprimand or demotion for either.
Preponderance of the evidence indicates the claim is true? Reprimand for the guilty party. Remove the guilty party from the victim's department/team, demoting them if necessary.
Beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim is true? Fire the guilty party immediately.

This is assuming the initial assault was serious enough to merit firing, but you get the idea I'm going for.
Click to expand...

Except for - reprimand the accuser! How about legal action to take their possessions, livelihood and reputation?
Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
What a cheap out! If you have something other than sarcasm to make a point, roll it out. Save the sarcasm for those who respect your wit.
C'mon,...… We're waiting!
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Out?
I outed you.

My post stands. Maybe it went over your head.

No one reasoned responds to a mindless fallacy.

Make a reasonable point, post and I'll respond in a resoned manner.

Get sucked into a discussion based on fallacy?

Not me dude. Run that on the low IQ posters here.
 
Last edited:
molten_dragon said:
In an employment situation, where there are no criminal charges being filed, I think there can be a scaling response to the level of proof. For .
Click to expand...

Why are you even speaking to this ridiculous "proof" narrative.

You lost as soon as you entered the argument.

This is a job interview. Not a criminal proceeding.

I hired many many people over the years and character was always a part of it.

That is all this is about.

It's this simple. You listen to the women that recall the judge being less than he claims and if they seem credible you have to decide if his narrative is not likely not true and if you are willing to except someone who has misrepresented himself.
 
noonereal said:
Out?
I outed you.

My post stands. Maybe it went over your head.

No one reasoned responds to a mindless fallacy.

Make a reasonable point, post and I'll respond in a resoned manner.

Get sucked into a discussion based on fallacy?

Not me dude. Run that on the low IQ posters here.
Click to expand...
Yes. Your point sailed over my head to parts unknown. If I considered low IQ as a point of inclusion, you would be one of the first
I addressed.
You outed me? Well, I sure would like to know more about that!
I don't know the point you need, I said what I had to say to your cheesy reply.
What now?
Regards,
CP
 
SDET said:
In an employment situation, what should be the burden of proof before taking adverse action against the accused and why?
Click to expand...

there is no 'burden of proof' in the interactions between private parties. the government's burden changes depending on the risks involved to the accused in the proceeding. If incarceration is the risk, the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. If the forfeiture of money is involved in a civil tort the burden is normally a preponderance of the evidence. Here the risk is that a job opportunity is denied. Nothing concrete is taken from the accused, but something of value is at risk to which the accused was never entitled to in the first place.

So the burden required is decided by the employer weighing the charge, the evidence and the need for an unblemished character as an employment standard. I think the wise course is for the employer to just try for basic fairness because morale among the staff, and the need to attract quality candidates demand employers have a reputation to be fair to applicants. It behooves employers to be fair to complainants, or accusers of wrongdoing if they want information about the character of their applicants to show up in the background check rather than later when liability may be greater.
 
concernedpuma said:
Yes. Your point sailed over my head to parts unknown. If I considered low IQ as a point of inclusion, you would be one of the first
I addressed.
You outed me? Well, I sure would like to know more about that!
I don't know the point you need, I said what I had to say to your cheesy reply.
What now?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...


God Bless you.
 
btthegreat said:
there is no 'burden of proof' in the interactions between private parties. .
Click to expand...

Finally someone that gets it.

This whole burden of proof nonsense is a messaging tactic to sidetrack.

Think I'l watch a rerun of the Sopranos.
 
Big Ed said:
What if the act was consensual, but later the woman presses charges? Hypothetically situation, she is expecting more than a one-night stand, but after the activity, she learns he has no intention of seeing her again, finds out he's married, has another girl-friend (or more), or... and decides to accuse him of sexual assault?
Click to expand...

Very few women are that vindictive... I would bet the same percentage of guys turn around and act vindictive when rejected too.
 
SDET said:
In an employment situation, what should be the burden of proof before taking adverse action against the accused and why?
Click to expand...

it should be clear and convincing evidence when it comes to someone's reputation.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Very few women are that vindictive... I would bet the same percentage of guys turn around and act vindictive when rejected too.
Click to expand...

I think the Patty Bowman charges against William Kennedy Smith were based on her upset she wasn't going to get more than one night with a Kennedy. I watched that trial from start to end. How it made it passed the GJ is a puzzler given how awful the Prosecution was in that case
 
TurtleDude said:
I think the Patty Bowman charges against William Kennedy Smith were based on her upset she wasn't going to get more than one night with a Kennedy. I watched that trial from start to end. How it made it passed the GJ is a puzzler given how awful the Prosecution was in that case
Click to expand...

You have to know after all these years that I don't care about these stupid political accusations and trials...
 
Bodhisattva said:
You have to know after all these years that I don't care about these stupid political accusations and trials...
Click to expand...

some do-it was a very useful case for the proposition-Hell hath no fury.....

and yes I defended a Kennedy. BTW his uncle was AWESOME as a witness. Why the prosecution called the guy I will never figure out. I despised him politically but he was no fool and he pretty much annihilated the DA
 
Bodhisattva said:
Very few women are that vindictive... I would bet the same percentage of guys turn around and act vindictive when rejected too.
Click to expand...

WHAT???? That is absurd. Try living in the real world. Examine your past, and try to return untarred! Everyone has things they would like to re-do. If you don't, you were out of touch and very likely a nerd. You know that, right?

Regards,
CP
 
Last edited:
concernedpuma said:
WHAT???? That is absurd. Try living in the real world. Examine your past, and try to return untarred! Everyone has things they would like to re-do. If you don't, you were out of touch and very likely a nerd. You know that, right?

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

How in the world does your post have anything to do with what I said?

I have also lived and done things that most people imagine, to be honest.
 
Bodhisattva said:
How in the world does your post have anything to do with what I said?

I have also lived and done things that most people imagine, to be honest.
Click to expand...

Darn it! I may be guilty of skimming your post. I noted only your posit that few women are that vindictive. That set me off. I am surely guilty of being too sensitive to the nasty whirlwind about Justice Kavanaugh, and thought you were somehow attacking him.
My apologies for my knee jerk reaction.
Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
Darn it! I may be guilty of skimming your post. I noted only your posit that few women are that vindictive. That set me off. I am surely guilty of being too sensitive to the nasty whirlwind about Justice Kavanaugh, and thought you were somehow attacking him.
My apologies for my knee jerk reaction.
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

All good! :mrgreen:
 
concernedpuma said:
I believe I wrote Incorporated. No one owns that. That is the reason for incorporation, yes?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

You did, and it is. Nevertheless, being fired usually incurs loss of personal wealth, which is why it is a deterrent to poor job performance.
Poor job performance would include costing your company lots of money in unnecessary lawsuits, filed by employees whose character you disparaged by accusing them of sexual misconduct without any proof.
 
HK.227 said:
You did, and it is. Nevertheless, being fired usually incurs loss of personal wealth, which is why it is a deterrent to poor job performance.
Poor job performance would include costing your company lots of money in unnecessary lawsuits, filed by employees whose character you disparaged by accusing them of sexual misconduct without any proof.
Click to expand...

Why, certainly yes. It seems we agree both agree to that.
Regard's,
CP
 
Burden of proof for sexual harassment before taking adverse action?
Click to expand...
Burden of proof in what context?
  • In a criminal court of law --> Beyond a reasonable doubt
  • In a civil court of law --> Preponderantly likely
  • In a job interview --> Absent probative contravening evidence.

    This is a pretty low bar (burden) but as a former firm owner, I know I wouldn't knowingly risked having, at some future moment, to deal with the specter of disrepute being brought onto my firm on account of a partner/principal or employee having been accused of a major crime like sexual assault, though that isn't the only crime. From a organization risk management and business standpoint, it's just not worth it. That said, it's not as though unindicted/unconvicted reprobates volunteer that they sexually assaulted someone and that that person may someday reveal that such happened.

    If one doesn't know of any allegation, well, one doesn't know....it's not as though firms conduct investigations as through as does the FBI (It's impossible for firms to do so; they haven't the force of Section 1001.). Organizations can't do anything about or avoid the consequences of that about which they are unaware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom