Due Process For All Is Justice For All
That's essential -- but it may not untar a reputation.
It's easy for the public to believe -- and hard to forget -- allegations of sexual assault. Lucy Wescott writes at Newsweek:
A defamation case against high-profile attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has been settled after two lawyers admitted it was a "mistake" to accuse him of having sex with a minor, their client.In a statement issued on Friday, Paul G. Cassell and Bradley J. Edwards, lawyers for Virginia Roberts, the woman who alleged she was forced to have sex with Dershowitz and others, said they "acknowledge that it was a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz."
"The sexual misconduct accusations made in all public filings...are hereby withdrawn. Dershowitz also withdraws his accusations that Edwards and Cassell acted unethically," the statement reads...
Dershowitz filed a sworn statement denying having sex with an underage girl while visiting dirtbag financier Jeffrey Epstein's island. As Wescott reports:
Dershowitz was also accused of having sex with a minor on Epstein's private plane. In that filing, Dershowitz said Jane Doe #3--later identified by Buckingham Palace officials as Roberts--was not on the plane or the island at the same time as him.
More from Politico's Josh Gerstein:
Dershowitz called the allegations "totally made up and totally fabricated from beginning to end." He said he was not in the places described in the filing at the relevant times, with one exception: He did visit Epstein's private island in the Caribbean on one occasion."I was there with my family," the renowned law professor said.
Here's Dershowitz:
.@AlanDersh: "There's no such thing as, 'All women tell the truth,' or 'All men tell the truth,'...Therefore we have to have due process." #IngrahamAngle pic.twitter.com/BbW67ZirXb
— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 16, 2017
As I have noted previously, we tend to regard rape and sexual assault as magical crimes. Every human being capable of communicating is capable of lying about anything. But somehow women discussing sex crimes is the exception, and we've become Bambi-eyed blinking idiots, simplistically assuring ourselves, "No woman would ever, ever, ever lie about rape because it's just too traumatic and horrible."
Bullshit.
Without evidence, I give any accusation all the consideration it's due. Which is to say, none. It may be reasonable for your family and friends to believe your allegation. But if you're a total stranger to me, I have absolutely no reason on earth to believe an accusation you've made without evidence to support it.
Patrick at December 16, 2017 5:40 AM
Does a strong reputation for honesty and good conduct not count as evidence, in a way? Or, simply, a lack of lying, over the years? Especially in an adult? ("Good" children and teens lie plenty in general, of course, whether out of anger, fear, or greed.)
After all, while mistaken identity is certainly a real thing, aside from that, we don't automatically disbelieve those claim they were robbed or those who accuse individuals of stealing, just because the hard evidence may not be there right away. (Even though insurance fraud exists too.)
lenona at December 16, 2017 6:24 AM
When a person claims they were robbed, the police typically come over to investigate. So, yes, we expect people who claim they were robbed to be able to prove that they were robbed. Or at least raise reasonable suspicion.
Anyone who claims they were the victims of a crime has to prove they were.
Patrick at December 16, 2017 7:19 AM
I was talking about the general public sentiment, not the police in particular.
lenona at December 16, 2017 7:34 AM
Another non-apology.
So, it "was a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz." No one here is admitting the charges were mistaken or false, but only that filing them was a mistake.
That's only admitting that fighting Dershowitz in a courtroom is difficult and was probably not the way to go with this; like a 200-pound chess nerd getting into a bar fight with Mike Tyson would be a mistake.
They have not cleared Dershowitz of the charges and restored to him his good name.
Conan the Grammarian at December 16, 2017 8:09 AM
lenona: I was talking about the general public sentiment, not the police in particular.
I still don't understand why I should even miss a beat over an allegation without evidence. Whether in law or society.
People sometimes make that argument to me -- about how we're not talking about the law, but society -- and it doesn't make any sense. Isn't the law supposed to reflect the values we have as a society?
Doesn't our law say "innocent until proven guilty" because we, as a society, don't believe in condemning people without evidence?
If Johnny No-name comes up and accuses Hillary Clinton of stealing his M&Ms, and has no evidence of this, why should I let this affect my opinion of Hillary Clinton in any way?
In fact, I'm going to regard Johnny No-Name with more suspicion rather than Hillary. Why would he come forward with an accusation he cannot prove, except with the intent of harming Hillary's reputation?
Is he seeking justice? Lacking evidence, he's not going to get it in a court of law. And if Hillary did actually steal his M&Ms and this resulted in long-lasting trauma for Johnny No-Name, then instead of airing his dirty laundry for all the world to see, his issues might be better discussed with his therapist, close friends and family. Not with me, who doesn't even know him.
Patrick at December 16, 2017 8:46 AM
Lenona, The difference is when we do something. And you are mixing things up pretty poorly. When someone says they were robbed we go 'Gee, that sucks' and that is the end of it. When someone says they were raped we go 'Gee, that sucks' and that is the end of it as well. No proof required because no actual action will happen. But when someone says 'That guy raped me' we require proof. Just like when someone says 'That guy stole from me'. So yes we do automatically disbelieve those who accuse someone of stealing. At least moral people do.
As for reputation, a public figure's doesn't mean much. There are plenty of people who are good at maintaining their reputation all while doing horrible things. The facade doesn't mean much. It may be great under there or it may be a cesspit. But from just the facade you can't tell.
As for why Republicans in particular don't care about sexual allegations anymore, this has been done falsely far too many times. Coming out with accusations right before an election (october surprise) when there is not enough time to tell if the allegations are true or false has been a common Democrat tactic for decades. And now Republicans have adjusted for that. The vast majority of the times after the election is over the allegation were proven false. And many of these claims are pretty ridiculous. Do you remember the sexual assault claims against George Bush Sr? The guy was in a wheel chair at the time. He lacked the physical strength much less the coordination. Remember mattress girl? Duke lacrosse? After so very many false charges Republican voters just don't care anymore. You want to be believed then bring proof and provide time for that proof to be verified. Too many blatant forgeries too.
Ben at December 16, 2017 9:32 AM
Why would someone lie about getting robbed?
1) For insurance fraud--this is quite common.
2) To keep from getting fired for missing work
3) To get out of trouble with the SO or parents for coming home all messed up from getting drunk and getting in a fight
I would offer that women might actually lie more than men because they often depend on others to do things for them and think they need to manipulate them (you don't owe them a favor if you get them to do it because you are helpless or something). They also lie more for social status and maintaining relationships. Men often don't care that much.
cc at December 16, 2017 9:38 AM
So yes we do automatically disbelieve those who accuse someone of stealing. At least moral people do.
_____________________________________
Even if BOTH parties were strangers to you, and all you knew was that it likely wasn't a case of mistaken identity, per se?
Of course, we've all heard of angry, prejudiced victims accusing people from minority groups without evidence just because the latter people dare to exist in the neighborhood, but I wasn't talking about that.
Maybe I should lump ALL people under 25 together when it comes to hotheaded accusations. Again, are you going to disbelieve someone over 40 as readily as you might disbelieve someone barely old enough to drink?
lenona at December 16, 2017 11:48 AM
Only if they wish to have the police investigate, perhaps in order to file an insurance claim. And even then, the police investigation is likely to be cursory.
For a simple home or apartment burglary, the police are unlikely to put the forensics team on overtime. They're more likely to file a report and let the insurance company make the victim whole again.
For example, when my friend's car got broken into at his apartment complex, the police took fingerprints and filed a report so his insurance company would pay him to repair it. The officer flat out told him there would not be an investigation into the break-in. The fingerprints were so they'd have extra prosecutorial leverage against they guy if they caught him doing something else; that he'd probably never be charged with breaking into my friend's car. The police did not even take an inventory of what was stolen from the car; unless there was a missing Picasso, a car break-in was not a priority commanding use of precious police resources. My friend could have been lying and trying to get the insurance company to repair damages he himself did to the car. The police didn't care; they didn't even take his prints to eliminate him as a suspect.
Conan the Grammarian at December 16, 2017 12:00 PM
Or to put it another way, Ben, when one reads a newspaper story about people one doesn't know, there's a big difference between the reader's thinking "innocent unless proven guilty" (why is the word always "until" instead of "unless," anyway?) and thinking "that accuser is likely a liar at best." (Again, aside from the possibility of mistaken identity.)
lenona at December 16, 2017 12:14 PM
"Even if BOTH parties were strangers to you, and all you knew was that it likely wasn't a case of mistaken identity, per se?"
Definitely yes! You have two people whom you know nothing about. You have to history for either of them. So you cannot tell what is real and what is made up. You just don't have any data to make a decision on.
Mind I made it clear that if you aren't actually going to do anything people say nice things and don't worry any further.
As for your news paper situation, if the paper is reporting someone is a thief and they weren't convicted in a court of law that is libel and they can be taken to court over it. Even reporting someone else's accusation can get them convicted.
Ben at December 16, 2017 2:52 PM
There is a decent body of research from the FBI, DOJ, Military and independent researchers indicating that while false sexual assault allegations are rare, unsupported claims of sexual assault are not.
The difference is that allegations are avowed statements made to law enforcement for the purpose of advancing criminal charges. Claims ( as defined by the research ) are simply statements made to an authority.
Only about 1/3 of claims become formal allegations. Most are not 'pursued' either at the wish of the claimant or discretion of law enforcement.
Of those that do become criminal charges, less than 10% are proven false. That's the number that activists like to cite when they promote that false claims of rape are very rare - they're not actually talking about claims as defined in the data.
And the fact that 2/3 of claims don't become allegations doesn't mean that they're false, but it does indicate that many claims are untenable either because they are exaggerated or don't rise to the level of assault.
hellofin at December 17, 2017 10:54 AM
While I do think false claims are rare, I don't think think normal rates of false accusations would hold true for public figures. Mr. Dershowitz mentioned the huge financial incentive to file a false claim -- it may be "settled" because it is cheaper than fighting it, plus media will pay for the story.
There is also the "end justifies the means" logic. If someone really believes a politician is dangerous, they may be able to rationalize a false claim to keep them from office.
Trust at December 17, 2017 12:11 PM
"I was there with my family," the renowned law professor (Dershowitz) said.
He took his family to "dirtbag financier Jeffrey Epstein's" island?
Ken R at December 18, 2017 12:52 AM
"Of those that do become criminal charges, less than 10% are proven false."
This is completely inverted with respect to the law. An allegation of a crime must be conclusively proven true. Any insufficiency of evidence results and should result in a "no bill" for the crime.
The most famous trial in recent history is a great example. OJ was found, "not guilty". He was not found "innocent".
Radwaste at December 18, 2017 3:54 AM
Radwaste: Not only is no one ruling that defendants are innocent, but over 90% of all criminal charges result in a guilty plea or a conviction at trial. Ethical prosecutors don't file charges unless they believe they have proof. (I'd be much happier if unethical prosecutors were disbarred far more often, but I doubt they are more than a small minority. Even if they have the same ethical void as Nifong, most of them aren't _stupid_.) The missing numbers here are:
1) Percentage of rape allegations made to the press or colleges that are never reported to the police. In most of these, the alleged acts weren't sexual assaults (e.g., the male student who was expelled by a college because a female student performed oral sex on him while he was blacked-out drunk - maybe the female could have been charged with rape, but not the male), are facially unbelievable by a reasonable person (the Rolling Stone article alleging that a student at UVA was gang-raped on broken glass and did not seek medical treatment), or simply lack supporting evidence, often because the alleged victim waited months, years, or even decades to make their claim.
2) Percentage of rape allegations to the police that are investigated and found probably false.
3) Percentage of rape allegations to the police that are investigated and found lacking in sufficient evidence either way.
I've seen reports that put 2 + 3 at well over 50%, and there's no one with the job of distinguishing #2 from #3. The percentage of women reporting rape who are prosecuted for a false report is miniscule, but that doesn't seem to be from a lack of clearly false reports but a political decision to let nearly all such cases go - except for ones where a cop was accused of rape.
markm at December 26, 2017 7:17 AM
Leave a comment