I think you summarized it well and I agree somewhat, but frankly am shocked at NARSOLs position here. To be straightforward, there is a movement right now that suggests Americans set aside the presumption of innocence of the accused, burden of proof, and due process based on the lone presented statistic that would indicate sexual assault allegations are 92%-98% always true. Such a suggestion, in my opinion is neither objective, constructive, nor fair to the judicial process at all. Yes, it apears that most allegations are accurate; but hardly all are.
Regardless, for example, if statistics indicated that 99% of alleged burglary victims file accurate reports, should we then take that into account when judging the accused with regards to burglary at a jury trial? 99 out of 100 are guilty? . so then what…the suggestion is that Americans err on the side of caution as jurors…guilty, if accused. How does that help the innocent? How does that help justice? How does that help real victims?
The presentation of such a fact (I’m not sure yet frankly, that it’s accurate, however) that lets say 98% sexual assault claims are true, I would then argue such a presentation infects and potentially may affect the ability of jurers to weigh evidence against the accused especially not without presenting evidence of false allegallegations with regards to othercrimes. Would any reasonable judge allow that statement by a prosecutor? “Ladies, and Gentlemen of the jury, be advised that it is a well known fact based on statistical evidence that all allegations of sexual assault are 98% accurate…”
This is not ok at all.
No more so …than permitting prosecutors the ability to present to a jury “Statistics indicate that 100% of all Americans speed and break motor vehicle laws and police are 99% truthful when issuing citations” before prosecuting a case of speeding. Each case is unique. And neither the state, alleged victim, nor the accused should arrive with these kind of preconceived nor prejudged discriminations. Should we take this same approachieve with all capital crimes too? Afterall, aren’t most guilty. Nevermind the multitudes freed by the innocence project that have come to light thank God.
I’ll be honest…If this is youre and NARSOLs stance here, Im affraid I will have to reconsider my support. I find this extremely very offensive to the notion of the presumption of innocence, and frankly in the face of the constitution of the United States for which we all currently find severe grievances.
Yes, alleged victims deserved to be heard and treated respectfully. They deserve their day in court, their right to present evidence against the accused, and their right to be part of punishment of the guilty, but that does not mean in any way they have a right to be believed upon an allegation absent any firm evidence. Nor, does that however negate any due process of the accused or concicted. My issue with this is, as presented, suggests we believe all accusers based on statistics. Is that your position?
If you’re simply saying please respect an accuser that comes forward, ok…I can do that, and that’s fair until evidence suggests otherwise. No one is attacking victims here. Our issue is with the constitution. But, this article reads very much like a metoo movement peice…if youre suggesting that we bow down even more and forfeit more of the concepts of the constitution (which appears to be the case) than we argueably already have, I -and those Ive urged to participate here- will bow out now out of respectfull disagreement.
Can you please elaborate NARSOLs exact position regarding this situation? This is very important.