Does the Evidence Weigh In Favor of both Clinton and Moore being sexual predators?

[cpwill]

The case for both is (roughly)

1. Multiple victims who don't know each other, but who all came up with similar stories (including victims who are political allies of the accused)
2. Many different witnesses who attest to the event being relayed to them over a period of years
3. A pattern of behavior over several years

4. Against the word of the man involved.

Oddly, it seems that folks think that this standard works for one individual, but not for another. Let's see if anyone is willing to plug their name down, and how.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The case for both is (roughly)

1. Multiple victims who don't know each other, but who all came up with similar stories (including victims who are political allies of the accused)
2. Many different witnesses who attest to the event being relayed to them over a period of years
3. A pattern of behavior over several years

4. Against the word of the man involved.

Oddly, it seems that folks think that this standard works for one individual, but not for another. Let's see if anyone is willing to plug their name down, and how.

In this regard I will not offer an opinion except to reiterate that as far as I am concerned people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I do not give any credence to the kangaroo court of "public opinion," but prefer to let the actual justice system perform it's duty.

Edit: Of note, Clinton (assuming your reference is to Bill Clinton) eventually admitted having consensual "relations" with Monica Lewinski. In regards to that sexual activity however, no charges entailed.

Meanwhile, he has not admitted to the criminal allegations of rape raised by the other women.

 

[Anagram]

In this regard I will not offer an opinion except to reiterate that as far as I am concerned people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I do not give any credence to the kangaroo court of "public opinion," but prefer to let the actual justice system perform it's duty.

I can respect living that way, but I disagree with that point of view. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a tough standard to meet for criminal conviction, and rightfully so, but I do think it's reasonable for people to have a less stringent standard then that when they consider how to view people.

 

[JANFU]

In this regard I will not offer an opinion except to reiterate that as far as I am concerned people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I do not give any credence to the kangaroo court of "public opinion," but prefer to let the actual justice system perform it's duty.

Edit: Of note, Clinton (assuming your reference is to Bill Clinton) eventually admitted having consensual "relations" with Monica Lewinski. In regards to that sexual activity however, no charges were pressed.

Meanwhile, he has not admitted to the criminal allegations of rape raised by the other women.

And when the Statue of Limitations expires, are they suddenly innocent?
What do you propose to rectify this?

 

[JANFU]

The case for both is (roughly)

1. Multiple victims who don't know each other, but who all came up with similar stories (including victims who are political allies of the accused)
2. Many different witnesses who attest to the event being relayed to them over a period of years
3. A pattern of behavior over several years

4. Against the word of the man involved.

Oddly, it seems that folks think that this standard works for one individual, but not for another. Let's see if anyone is willing to plug their name down, and how.

Both are guilty as sin.

 

[chuckiechan]

The case for both is (roughly)

1. Multiple victims who don't know each other, but who all came up with similar stories (including victims who are political allies of the accused)
2. Many different witnesses who attest to the event being relayed to them over a period of years
3. A pattern of behavior over several years

4. Against the word of the man involved.

Oddly, it seems that folks think that this standard works for one individual, but not for another. Let's see if anyone is willing to plug their name down, and how.

I like this:

Ed Henry on Moore accusations: I?m not buying it | News | cullmantimes.com

Prosecute these people who conveniently pop up during an election if they can’t produce credible proof.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I can respect living that way, but I disagree with that point of view. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a tough standard to meet for criminal conviction, and rightfully so, but I do think it's reasonable for people to have a less stringent standard then that when they consider how to view people.

"Reasonable people" should hold to the same standard. It is the presentation of unproven salacious gossip which damages a person's reputation by raising allegations touted as truth which have not been settled in law.

"Reasonable people" should require the same standard of proof before giving any credibility to such accusations.

And when the Statue of Limitations expires, are they suddenly innocent? What do you propose to rectify this?

I don't propose to rectify it. I support statutes of limitations because they protect everyone from trying to defend themselves against accusations that occur so long after the fact that any evidence which might serve to show them innocent or only guilty of a lesser offense has been lost to time.

If someone is harmed then the charge should be broached either at the time of the alleged crime, or within a reasonable time thereafter. This benefits both the accused and the prosecution.

 

[Chomsky]

I think it's most likely both of these guys did much of what they are accused of, including Trump too!

We of course never will know, so we examine the evidence and make our best inference. We can't navigate life waiting for the high legal standards of a criminal court room. We'll never get anywhere, with that type of thinking.

 

[Anagram]

"Reasonable people" should hold to the same standard. It is the presentation of unproven salacious gossip which damages a person's reputation by raising allegations touted as truth which have not been settled in law.

"Reasonable people" should require the same standard of proof before giving any credibility to such accusations.

Unproven salacious gossip is one thing. But a claim with evidence behind it, that just doesn't rise to beyond a reasonable doubt is another.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at situations like these with something akin to "preponderance of the evidence." No reason that public opinion should have to hold even higher than our civil standard.

 

[JANFU]

"Reasonable people" should hold to the same standard. It is the presentation of unproven salacious gossip which damages a person's reputation by raising allegations touted as truth which have not been settled in law.

"Reasonable people" should require the same standard of proof before giving any credibility to such accusations.



I don't propose to rectify it. I support statutes of limitations because they protect everyone from trying to defend themselves against accusations that occur so long after the fact that any evidence which might serve to show them innocent or only guilty of a lesser offense has been lost to time.

If someone is harmed then the charge should be broached either at the time of the alleged crime, or within a reasonable time thereafter. This benefits both the accused and the prosecution.

And 3 years is reasonable?
I think it is longer on taxes.

 

[Chomsky]

"Reasonable people" should hold to the same standard. It is the presentation of unproven salacious gossip which damages a person's reputation by raising allegations touted as truth which have not been settled in law.

"Reasonable people" should require the same standard of proof before giving any credibility to such accusations.



I don't propose to rectify it. I support statutes of limitations because they protect everyone from trying to defend themselves against accusations that occur so long after the fact that any evidence which might serve to show them innocent has been lost to time.

If someone is harmed then the charge should be broached either at the time of the alleged crime, or within a reasonable time thereafter. This benefits both the accused and the prosecution.

But that's not always possible.

For example, Judge Moore's election is in 4 weeks. The voters will need to use their best inference to make their decision. It's not possible to conclusively prove the Judge's actions one-way-or-another. So we draw on the evidence at hand, along with our life's experiences, and make a gut decision. The same as we do with dozens of other decisions in our daily life.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Unproven salacious gossip is one thing. But a claim with evidence behind it, that just doesn't rise to beyond a reasonable doubt is another.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at situations like these with something akin to "preponderance of the evidence." No reason that public opinion should have to hold even higher than our civil standard.

Sorry, the "evidence" you speak of is that presented by the news...which is designed to sell advertising. It is usually a statement of the charges and then a litany of past criminal history. Sometimes snippets of "alleged" evidence are disclosed, coloring the witness pool and preventing a fair trial.

Preponderance of the evidence is a standard for civil trials because the only penalty is money/property. Liberty interests are at risk in a criminal trial and people should be cognizant of that.

 

[Anagram]

Sorry, the "evidence" you speak of is that presented by the news...which is designed to sell advertising. It is usually a statement of the charges and then a litany of past criminal history. Sometimes snippets of "alleged" evidence are disclosed, coloring the witness pool and preventing a fair trial.

All things you can be cognizant of while you're weighing the evidence in your own mind.

Preponderance of the evidence is a standard for civil trials because the only penalty is money/property. Liberty interests are at risk in a criminal trial and people should be cognizant of that.

That's pretty much my point. Except that money/property isn't even at stake here, let alone liberty.

 

[Captain Adverse]

But that's not always possible.

For example, Judge Moore's election is in 4 weeks. The voters will need to use their best inference to make their decision. It's not possible to conclusively prove the Judge's actions one-way-or-another. So we draw on the evidence at hand, along with our life's experiences, and make a gut decision. The same as we do with dozens of other decisions in our daily life.

Your argument defeats itself. You are saying that action of some kind must be taken to protect other public interests. But that argument supports the acceptance of possible lies and innuendos to color the candidate and create an atmosphere leading to his defeat.

IMO if the person is guilty, his office does not protect him from subsequent prosecution and removal from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. Meanwhile, accepting the allegations as truth, but later finding out they were baseless or false?

The damage is done and the person harmed was victimized by your rush to judgement.

 

[Captain Adverse]

All things you can be cognizant of while you're weighing the evidence in your own mind.

That's pretty much my point. Except that money/property isn't even at stake here, let alone liberty.

Actually they are.

The court of public opinion has far-reaching effects on a person's life and liberty.

Two examples come to mind.

1. The McMartin Preschool child molestation case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

2. The Duke Lacrosse Team rape case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_ca

People rushed to judgement in each case, and lives and livelihoods were irreparably damaged. Members were imprisoned pending investigation and trial. People still believe the people involved in each case were guilty.

 

[Anagram]

Actually they are.

The court of public opinion has far-reaching effects on a person's life and liberty.

Two examples come to mind.

1. The McMartin Preschool child molestation case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

2. The Duke Lacrosse Team rape case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_ca

People rushed to judgement in each case, and lives and livelihoods were irreparably damaged. Members were imprisoned pending investigation and trial. People still believe the people involved in each case were guilty.

I think that's more of an argument that the actual officials who bring charges should be better at interpreting the evidence before doing so. The "public" cannot arrest and detain people.

 

[Captain Adverse]

And 3 years is reasonable?
I think it is longer on taxes.

Where did you get "three years?" Citation please.

My understanding was that the prime case (14 year old?) was back in 1979. That's a much longer time than "3 years." Meanwhile, such statutes involving child cases usually toll after they turn 18, giving them until 21 to file a charge...that would be within 7 years of the act with the 14 year old. But this differs from State to State and I haven't researched this particular case before making this reply.

 

[JANFU]

Where did you get "three years?" Citation please.

My understanding was that the prime case (14 year old?) was back in 1979. That's a much longer time than "3 years." Meanwhile, such statutes involving child cases usually toll after they turn 18, giving them until 21 to file a charge...that would be within 7 years of the act with the 14 year old. But this differs from State to State and I haven't researched this particular case before making this reply.

Alabama- 3 years or age 21.
I posted it previously. And no one challenged it, I do hope I am in error, as Moore would/could be brought to trial.
Feel free to drop a dime on me - taking a line from Bannon.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I think that's more of an argument that the actual officials who bring charges should be better at interpreting the evidence before doing so. The "public" cannot arrest and detain people.

But the public perpetuates the lie well past the time of the alleged act...as I stated in both cases, the news made much of the allegations...was meek in the later recantations.

The problem with accepting such allegations to play it "safe" causes immediate harm to the person involved...in this case a candidate for office. So he has to defend something that may or may not have happened 40 years ago?

Why, because the witch-hunt mentality of the current political clime pushes a narrative of "listen to them now!" they MUST be speaking the truth rather than, "where were your allegations back then?"

Or, more appropriately asking why does this memory suddenly arise now?

 

[Chomsky]

Your argument defeats itself. You are saying that action of some kind must be taken to protect other public interests. But that argument supports the acceptance of possible lies and innuendos to color the candidate and create an atmosphere leading to his defeat.

IMO if the person is guilty, his office does not protect him from subsequent prosecution and removal from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. Meanwhile, accepting the allegations as truth, but later finding out they were baseless or false?

The damage is done and the person harmed was victimized by your rush to judgement.

You know, I often love debating with you because you use excellent logic!

But you're building your case upon the supposition that the girl may be lying. Yet in this case there's nothing to show the alleged victim is lying. However, a time to judge has been forced upon us; i.e., the election.


As a citizen and a voter, I can only work with the data I have at my disposal. And her's is one more data-point to evaluate.

My point was: We often have to work with limited data when forced to make decisions. So we use our best inference.

The election forces us to make this decision, not a "rush to judgement" as you claim.

 

[Anagram]

But the public perpetuates the lie well past the time of the alleged act...as I stated in both cases, the news made much of the allegations...was meek in the later recantations.

The problem with accepting such allegations to play it "safe" causes immediate harm to the person involved...in this case a candidate for office. So he has to defend something that may or may not have happened 40 years ago?

Why, because the witch-hunt mentality of the current political clime pushes a narrative of "listen to them now!" they MUST be speaking the truth rather than, "where were you back then?"

Or, more appropriately asking why does this memory suddenly arise now?

Don't accept such allegations to play it safe. Accept it only when there is evidence which makes you believe that it is more likely than not that it happened. You're acting like I'm saying that people should automatically believe any allegation thrown out there by anyone.

 

[Chomsky]

Alabama- 3 years or age 21.
I posted it previously. And no one challenged it, I do hope I am in error, as Moore would/could be brought to trial.
Feel free to drop a dime on me - taking a line from Bannon.

Your numbers were also in the original WaPo article, for what it's worth.

 

[JANFU]

Your numbers were also in the original WaPo article, for what it's worth.

Thank you
Was looking it up again.

 

[Chomsky]

Don't accept such allegations to play it safe. Accept it only when there is evidence which makes you believe that it is more likely than not that it happened. You're acting like I'm saying that people should automatically believe any allegation thrown out there by anyone.

Exactly.

This is the best any of us can do in situations when forced to make a decision when we are lacking conclusive evidence. We draw on our life's knowledge and experience, to make our best inference.

 

[JANFU]

But the public perpetuates the lie well past the time of the alleged act...as I stated in both cases, the news made much of the allegations...was meek in the later recantations.

The problem with accepting such allegations to play it "safe" causes immediate harm to the person involved...in this case a candidate for office. So he has to defend something that may or may not have happened 40 years ago?

Why, because the witch-hunt mentality of the current political clime pushes a narrative of "listen to them now!" they MUST be speaking the truth rather than, "where were your allegations back then?"

Or, more appropriately asking why does this memory suddenly arise now?

Should sexual child abuse have a Statute of Limitations?