Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree with you.  Bfine is the one saying we have to assume everyone is innocent until the facts prove they are guilty.

99% of the population is not going to let a person babysit their child when another child has claimed to be sexually assaulted by that babysitter.  They would not use the babysitter again unless there was definitive proof that the babysitter was innocent.  Just "lack of corroboration" would not be enough.

"Presumption of innocence" is not as common as some people here seem to believe.  When most juries are seated and you ask them they will say that they are not making any presumption of either guilt or innocence until they hear the evidence.  That is why many criminal defense attorneys will address the presumption of innocence in opening statement.  A criminal trial is one of the VERY FEW places where it is proper to make a presumption without hearing any facts or evidence at all.

I didn't say you had to assume anything. I said removing presumption of innocence tears at our very fabric as a Nation. Ever read "To Kill A Mockingbird?" That's an example of the adults siding with the children without evidence.

Are you actually saying that Kavs testifying under oath to respond to a accusation shouldn't be given the presumption of innocence or are you just talking out your ass?