Quote:
Originally Posted by wdfifteen
More personal attacks. Just can't control yourselves can you?
I understand the assumption of innocence. My question is how do you resolve this paradox.
Assume the man is innocent of assault- he didn’t do it.
Assume the woman is innocent of lying - he did it.
As I said, for much of history it was mostly assumed women were guilty of lying when they make an accusation. Fortunately we seem to be moving to an era when the assumption of innocence is more even handed.
|
There is no paradox. The person being accused is presumed innocent until proven, to some standard of proof, otherwise. That standard of proof is higher in a criminal case than it is in most civil cases. It is up to the accuser(s) to provide evidence supporting their accusation.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the burden of proof required in criminal cases in the U.S. This means that there is "no plausible reason to believe otherwise". For most civil cases, "preponderance of the evidence" is the burden of proof required. The phrase often used with this is "more likely than not".
A women saying a man abused her is, on its own, not enough evidence to meet the burden of proof in civil or criminal trials. Nor should it be.
Just because the burden of proof is not met does not mean the accuser is lying. They could be telling the truth, they could be lying, they could be confused, they could be misremembering, or they could be misidentifying someone.
We cannot know what is in a person's heart (or mind if you prefer). This is why we must have enough evidence to support their accusation to some level of burden of proof before we can find someone guilty.