Mapping the world's opinions

<< Previous (3 of 5 Positions) Next >>

No reasonable prosecutor would take the case

Regardless of whether he did or didn't do it, the evidence presented doesn't surmount to a guilty verdict.

(1 of 1 Argument)

Context

In most developed nations, the judicial system demands that those accused are innocent until proven guilty. As Kavanaugh stands accused of sexual assault, this must apply to him too.

The Argument

No reasonable prosecutor would take on the case against Brett Kavanaugh. He stands accused of sexual assault following an incident that occurred several decades ago, without hard evidence or witnesses. The "he said, she said" nature of the case means that the allegations do not meet the standard required to convict Kavanaugh in the court of law.[1] Rachel Mitchell, the career sex-crimes prosecutor who questioned Blasey Ford at the Senate Judiciary Hearing, concluded that no “reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence.” This standard of innocent until proven guilty must be the standard we set in all spheres to protect the innocent from unfounded and slanderous claims. It is, therefore, unfair to speculate on whether Kavanaugh did or did not do the things Blasey Ford accuses him of.

Counter arguments

But the hearings are not lawsuits. Just because the evidence is not sufficient to convict him in a legal setting, does not mean we cannot convict him in the social landscape, where the bar is set much lower. [2] Does Kavanaugh deserve to go to prison based on the evidence? No. But does he deserve to have it reflect negatively on his character and potentially prevent him from serving on the highest court in the land? Absolutely. The innocent until proven guilty mantra does not apply to job interviews. If the allegations of Blasey Ford seem credible, then that should be sufficient to raise questions over his suitability to sit on the Supreme Court.< ref name=Quartz/>

Premises

[P1] In most developed legal systems we presume innocent until evidence suggests otherwise. [P2] There is insufficient evidence to determine Kavanaugh's guilt without reasonable doubt. [P3] Therefore, irrespective of whether he committed the acts described by Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh is innocent.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] He is not on trial and will not be found guilty or innocent. He is essentially at a job interview for a seat on the Supreme Court. The 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra doesn't apply to job interviews.

References

  1. https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/kavanaugh-innocent-until-proven-guilty-not-the-other-way-around
  2. http://time.com/5417005/presumption-of-innocence-history/

Proponents

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

This page was last edited on Friday, 22 Mar 2019 at 17:37 UTC