The big question is, who is responsible for the past? The answer is, those people in the past. I fail to see why that is so hard for so many to understand. I do not feel a bit of responsibilty for what my ancestors may, or may not have done. I wasn't there to influence, offer advice, enable or prevent any of that. What I am responsible for is today, this very moment. Even when the popular answer isn't popular, I am compelled to give that answer. Case in point, a presumption of innocence. That is part of the founding principles in this country we call the United States of America. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. That is the legal standard. Today is the senate hearing regarding the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. I expect it to be a bit of a fiasco. He said, she said, and what might have been, or might not have been. In this case the parties from the past are both here, in attendance. Each are responsible for the past, their past? Unless credible witnesses can present testimony to the contrary, the past is what each believe it to be. Isn't that the way it is with us all? Allow me to repeat that, " the past is what each believe it to be. " My perception of past events is likely different from yours. We all present past intentions as actions in the future. That is to say, what my intentions where are often quite different than the action taken. My intention was to feed my family, not rob the bank!
For that reason I must presume innocence. I must assume your intentions were not malicious or criminal. That's why we have a trial or a hearing, to establish the facts. Facts must be verifiable by independent parties. Yes, on Jerry Springer a " lie detector " is presented as sufficient evidence but we all know that it is unreliable. That's why it isn't permitted in a court of law. There is no test to determine what is truth simply because truth is subjective. Also why motive is often entered into as evidence. Motive defines intention correct? No that isn't correct, motive only provides a reason one may or may not have performed a specific action. Just because motive is present that doesn't prove guilt! In today's hearing will motives be questioned? I know one thing that is presumed already, that Judge Kavanaugh wanted to have sex with that girl. Will that motive be questioned? Hah, you know it will not because it is presumed every man wants to have sex at every opportunity. Even suggesting otherwise will be met with derision. You know it, I know it. That idea permeates our society.
Now there are those that will dispute that statement. I can hear them now. It will be the same people proclaiming you must believe Christine Ford because she is a woman. And women only want to have sex when they want to have sex. They would never lie about that, ever. They may color their hair, lie about their age and mislead men with their intentions/actions but never lie about the results of those actions. The man is guilty because all men are guilty, and the girl is innocent because all girls are innocent. Everybody knows that. That is the card you play when there is no other evidence to present. All you can do is proclaim innocence. Maybe I can gather a few friends to support my claims, maybe I can get friends to say well he might have, and you might even get a friend to say ME TOO. But, the bottom line is still, no evidence. It's still she said, he said. It all goes to credibility. So what we are trying to determine is this. A 15 year old girl and a 17 year old boy are at a party together, drinking alcohol. She says he did this and he says I didn't do this anywhere at any time. He isn't saying I was at that party and didn't do it. No, he's saying I never did that anywhere at any time. She responds with, I don't remember where or when it happened, but it happened. Don't we have to begin with, what proof do you have that he was at a party with you? That's right, we can't assume they were even at a party together. Where you at the bank when it was robbed? If I can't prove that you're innocent right?
It'll be an interesting testimony. Facts, that's all I want to hear. It'll be an emotionally charged hearing for certain. But innocence and guilt can not be determined by emotions. That's why a blindfolded lady stands there holding the scales. Facts matter.
For that reason I must presume innocence. I must assume your intentions were not malicious or criminal. That's why we have a trial or a hearing, to establish the facts. Facts must be verifiable by independent parties. Yes, on Jerry Springer a " lie detector " is presented as sufficient evidence but we all know that it is unreliable. That's why it isn't permitted in a court of law. There is no test to determine what is truth simply because truth is subjective. Also why motive is often entered into as evidence. Motive defines intention correct? No that isn't correct, motive only provides a reason one may or may not have performed a specific action. Just because motive is present that doesn't prove guilt! In today's hearing will motives be questioned? I know one thing that is presumed already, that Judge Kavanaugh wanted to have sex with that girl. Will that motive be questioned? Hah, you know it will not because it is presumed every man wants to have sex at every opportunity. Even suggesting otherwise will be met with derision. You know it, I know it. That idea permeates our society.
Now there are those that will dispute that statement. I can hear them now. It will be the same people proclaiming you must believe Christine Ford because she is a woman. And women only want to have sex when they want to have sex. They would never lie about that, ever. They may color their hair, lie about their age and mislead men with their intentions/actions but never lie about the results of those actions. The man is guilty because all men are guilty, and the girl is innocent because all girls are innocent. Everybody knows that. That is the card you play when there is no other evidence to present. All you can do is proclaim innocence. Maybe I can gather a few friends to support my claims, maybe I can get friends to say well he might have, and you might even get a friend to say ME TOO. But, the bottom line is still, no evidence. It's still she said, he said. It all goes to credibility. So what we are trying to determine is this. A 15 year old girl and a 17 year old boy are at a party together, drinking alcohol. She says he did this and he says I didn't do this anywhere at any time. He isn't saying I was at that party and didn't do it. No, he's saying I never did that anywhere at any time. She responds with, I don't remember where or when it happened, but it happened. Don't we have to begin with, what proof do you have that he was at a party with you? That's right, we can't assume they were even at a party together. Where you at the bank when it was robbed? If I can't prove that you're innocent right?
It'll be an interesting testimony. Facts, that's all I want to hear. It'll be an emotionally charged hearing for certain. But innocence and guilt can not be determined by emotions. That's why a blindfolded lady stands there holding the scales. Facts matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment