How can liberals believe that...

[ptbw forever]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

As I said, there are like 89 thousand Kavanaugh threads so I'd rather avoid having another one, but I'll offer a few thoughts

1) I think your premise is wrong, re: what liberals believe. You're overgeneralizing from a difference of opinion about a single case.

2) I think we should apply different standards of evidence in different contexts. So for example there is definitely not enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is guilty of a crime in relation to Ford's testimony, and so he should not face any criminal punishment. I doubt there is enough evidence to support a civil judgement either, but I don't really know for sure, and it would be hard to know without a much larger investigation which I assume will never occur.

With regard to Kavanaugh specifically, I disagree with characterizing the situation as one in which he faced punishment without "proof". He was not facing criminal or civil charges, he was being considered for a life-time appointment to the highest court in the U.S. I think part of the bargain that someone makes when they agree to be a nominee for such a position is that they will face a very high level of scrutiny. And the only possible consequence of that scrutiny under consideration was that he might not get the position. I think a reasonable standard of evidence necessary to deny him the position -- given it's importance and the length of the appointment -- is much weaker. I would vote against a nominee facing reasonably credible allegations of sexual misconduct even if I were not very certain they were guilty. That reflects the importance of the position, and the wide availability of qualified candidates without such allegations. I don't feel that this is prejudicial; no one is entitled to a supreme court seat, and the integrity of the court is very important to me. There are caveats here, of course. I would dismiss allegations that were clearly demonstrated to be false, but I don't believe that has happened here.

3) Many liberals view the problem of sexual violence and harassment in context with the fact that the criminal justice system has always been inadequate at protecting women, and for most of our history has been pretty complicit in perpetuating male dominance through sexual violence. Just as a single example, it's not a coincidence that there weren't even such things as laws against marital rape in all states until the early 90s. There's a cultural element to the way many men think about sexual assault allegations, and a lot of tendencies towards disbelieving victims even though false allegations are rare (which is not to say that they aren't serious!), and blaming victims in various ways.

It's also the case that the nature of criminal justice just doesn't work that well for these cases, precisely because there's often a lack of perfectly objective evidence (and I agree with rightwinger that testimony is evidence, n.b. that "evidence" is not "proof"). This is an unfortunate drawback of the standards of evidence we use in criminal cases. Don't get me wrong, we have good reasons for insisting on those standards and there would be other problems with relaxing them, but we should be cautious about the fact that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" almost necessarily means that many victims will never be able to have justice, because it's simply impossible for them to ever meet that standard. That's why rape is so under-reported and why there are relatively few prosecutions. This is a real injustice for women who have little recourse in many cases.

1. Kavanaugh would have lost his job on the circuit court eventually if he had not been promoted to a position that is much more safe, and his reputation as being a fair and upstanding guy trusted by women is still damaged permanently regardless. He was accused of being a pedophile.

2. Marital rape has nothing to do with women, it is about destroying marriage and families. You cannot rape your spouse. All the morons on here who say otherwise are suffering from early political correctness.

 

[ptbw forever]

How can liberals believe that...guns cause crime when they don't want to punish criminals?

Again, I think your premises are dubious, both that guns cause crime and that liberals are against criminal punishment in general. But here's my opinion:

Guns don't "cause" crime in any simple sense of the word cause, but there's ample evidence that the widespread availability of guns is highly correlated to deadly violence (cf. various charts here). If we had fewer guns, we would have fewer violent deaths, fewer suicides, and we would also almost certainly have fewer problems with police shooting people that didn't need shooting, because the police would be in dangerous situations less often.

So, there is a large social cost associated with having so many guns. There are also (from a liberal point of view) relatively few benefits. Guns are not, in fact, a useful deterrent to government tyranny, at least not in the 21st century. Guns are not a particularly desirable means of self-defense, or at the very least it would be preferable to not need guns for self defense, i.e. because there aren't so many guns. Liberals look at other countries and see that they don't have these problems.

Add that all together, and the conclusion is that guns aren't worth their social cost, and we ought to restrict access to them more than we do. Note that none of this reasoning has anything to do with the topic of criminal punishment in general. It's purely a cost/benefit calculation.

All of the countries who have heavy restrictions on guns are experiencing increased gun crime.

 

[miketx]

How can liberals believe that...guns cause crime when they don't want to punish criminals?

Again, I think your premises are dubious, both that guns cause crime and that liberals are against criminal punishment in general. But here's my opinion:

Guns don't "cause" crime in any simple sense of the word cause, but there's ample evidence that the widespread availability of guns is highly correlated to deadly violence (cf. various charts here). If we had fewer guns, we would have fewer violent deaths, fewer suicides, and we would also almost certainly have fewer problems with police shooting people that didn't need shooting, because the police would be in dangerous situations less often.

So, there is a large social cost associated with having so many guns. There are also (from a liberal point of view) relatively few benefits. Guns are not, in fact, a useful deterrent to government tyranny, at least not in the 21st century. Guns are not a particularly desirable means of self-defense, or at the very least it would be preferable to not need guns for self defense, i.e. because there aren't so many guns. Liberals look at other countries and see that they don't have these problems.

Add that all together, and the conclusion is that guns aren't worth their social cost, and we ought to restrict access to them more than we do. Note that none of this reasoning has anything to do with the topic of criminal punishment in general. It's purely a cost/benefit calculation.

That's because democrats are soft on crime. They are the party of crime.

 

[Jackson]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

Eyewitness testimony is proof. Many people are in prison based on eyewitness restimony

However, in the Dr. Ford vs Kavanaugh case, the witnesses of the assault could not corraborate the crime. All those that Dr. Ford claimed were at the event did not back her up. Even so, liberals still believe her accusation. The next time a woman could falsely accuse your own husband, brother or fasther. THEN, maybe you could understand the mechanics of verifying crimes existed and when they are fabricated.

 

[Jackson]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

As I said, there are like 89 thousand Kavanaugh threads so I'd rather avoid having another one, but I'll offer a few thoughts

1) I think your premise is wrong, re: what liberals believe. You're overgeneralizing from a difference of opinion about a single case.

2) I think we should apply different standards of evidence in different contexts. So for example there is definitely not enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is guilty of a crime in relation to Ford's testimony, and so he should not face any criminal punishment. I doubt there is enough evidence to support a civil judgement either, but I don't really know for sure, and it would be hard to know without a much larger investigation which I assume will never occur.

With regard to Kavanaugh specifically, I disagree with characterizing the situation as one in which he faced punishment without "proof". He was not facing criminal or civil charges, he was being considered for a life-time appointment to the highest court in the U.S. I think part of the bargain that someone makes when they agree to be a nominee for such a position is that they will face a very high level of scrutiny. And the only possible consequence of that scrutiny under consideration was that he might not get the position. I think a reasonable standard of evidence necessary to deny him the position -- given it's importance and the length of the appointment -- is much weaker. I would vote against a nominee facing reasonably credible allegations of sexual misconduct even if I were not very certain they were guilty. That reflects the importance of the position, and the wide availability of qualified candidates without such allegations. I don't feel that this is prejudicial; no one is entitled to a supreme court seat, and the integrity of the court is very important to me. There are caveats here, of course. I would dismiss allegations that were clearly demonstrated to be false, but I don't believe that has happened here.

3) Many liberals view the problem of sexual violence and harassment in context with the fact that the criminal justice system has always been inadequate at protecting women, and for most of our history has been pretty complicit in perpetuating male dominance through sexual violence. Just as a single example, it's not a coincidence that there weren't even such things as laws against marital rape in all states until the early 90s. There's a cultural element to the way many men think about sexual assault allegations, and a lot of tendencies towards disbelieving victims even though false allegations are rare (which is not to say that they aren't serious!), and blaming victims in various ways.

It's also the case that the nature of criminal justice just doesn't work that well for these cases, precisely because there's often a lack of perfectly objective evidence (and I agree with rightwinger that testimony is evidence, n.b. that "evidence" is not "proof"). This is an unfortunate drawback of the standards of evidence we use in criminal cases. Don't get me wrong, we have good reasons for insisting on those standards and there would be other problems with relaxing them, but we should be cautious about the fact that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" almost necessarily means that many victims will never be able to have justice, because it's simply impossible for them to ever meet that standard. That's why rape is so under-reported and why there are relatively few prosecutions. This is a real injustice for women who have little recourse in many cases.

1. Kavanaugh would have lost his job on the circuit court eventually if he had not been promoted to a position that is much more safe, and his reputation as being a fair and upstanding guy trusted by women is still damaged permanently regardless. He was accused of being a pedophile.

2. Marital rape has nothing to do with women, it is about destroying marriage and families. You cannot rape your spouse. All the morons on here who say otherwise are suffering from early political correctness.

On what premise do you validate that Kavanaugh would have been fired from his earlier position? Doesn't the rule of law mandate proof in all crime accusation cases?

 

[well named]

You cannot be "the party of science" and continue to see human development in the womb as anything less than a unique human life from the moment of conception. The days of claiming "whatever is in there" was a "clump of cells" is long over and gone. Sure, technically, we are ALL a "clump of cells". But from the moment sperm meets egg, that "clump of cells" has unique human DNA that is not mother, not father, but its own human being.

When it implants and begins to grow, aborting the human is murder.

I've not heard anyone on the left deny that a human embryo or fetus is human, and I agree that such a claim would be false. It is true that people who hold pro-choice positions generally reject the moral intuition that terminating human life at certain stages of development is murder. That intuition does not reduce to an empirical, scientific claim. Sometimes you hear this rejection of the moral principle expressed by someone saying that an embryo or fetus isn't a person. Even if that is a little ambiguous, I think it's clear that they are rejecting the moral equivalence between abortion and legally recognized murder, rather than rejecting the idea that a fetus contains human DNA.

Some people reject the claim that there is any moral problem related to abortion at all. However, I think a plurality of folks on the left do agree that there is some moral dimension to abortion, and this can be inferred from various survey data, i.e. in the percentage who hold that abortion should be legal only in some circumstances, and the sharp decline in support for legalized abortion in the second trimester. As for me, I also find value in the general moral principle that leads pro-life activists to reject abortion, and so I agree that abortion is morally problematic.

That said, I also think the typical pro-life position on abortion is morally incoherent, and the difficulty I have with it is that pro-life activists seem to extend their concern for the moral problems of abortion only so far as the birth of a child, and no further. This is basically the same objection rightwinger raised, but I'll try to elaborate.

The thing that makes abortion a difficult moral problem is that there are competing values at stake. One of those values is that human life is valuable and ought to be protected. But even for pro-life activists that value is not typically taken to be absolute. For example, many people who oppose abortion support the death penalty. Presumably the value they place on justice and retribution overrides the value they place on human life in specific circumstances. My only intent in making the comparison is to draw out the point that it doesn't follow automatically from the fact that an act involves the taking of human life that this same act is murder, or is morally impermissible. In vitro fertilization provides another example of the difficulty with equating "unique human DNA" with a strong legal protection for life. This is one way in which the pro-life position can sometimes be incoherent.

But there are also other values. Individual freedom and the right to self-determination is one, but there is also the value we place on quality of life. I think the pro-life position becomes particularly incoherent when it insists with absolute moral clarity that life must be preserved at all costs, but takes no interest in the quality of that life -- or the potential for human suffering -- after birth. It becomes then a pretty abstract moral principle. It doesn't seem to matter if a child is brought into the world in disadvantageous circumstances to parents that are unable to provide a good life. It doesn't seem to matter if being forced to bring that child into the world will have enormous negative consequences for the life of the parents. The social costs are ignored as well. There are many situations in which an abortion may be morally problematic but the alternatives appear to me to be no better. Pro-life activists don't often seem nearly as concerned about those moral issues, and that is what seems incoherent to me. In many cases the moral evaluation is muddy enough to me that I think there's a good argument that the best people to make those difficult decisions are the individuals who have to deal with the consequences.

The closest thing to a clear moral imperative in relation to abortion, in my view, is that we ought to do much more to avoid unwanted pregnancies to begin with, because that is the least morally problematic path. We ought to make contraception and sex education universally available. Here again, I find many pro-life activists' positions to be incoherent when they disapprove of these goals.

There's plenty more that could be said on this topic, and there are other considerations beyond the moral ones, but this post is long enough and I have to run for a while, so I'll leave it at that for now...

 

[ptbw forever]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

As I said, there are like 89 thousand Kavanaugh threads so I'd rather avoid having another one, but I'll offer a few thoughts

1) I think your premise is wrong, re: what liberals believe. You're overgeneralizing from a difference of opinion about a single case.

2) I think we should apply different standards of evidence in different contexts. So for example there is definitely not enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is guilty of a crime in relation to Ford's testimony, and so he should not face any criminal punishment. I doubt there is enough evidence to support a civil judgement either, but I don't really know for sure, and it would be hard to know without a much larger investigation which I assume will never occur.

With regard to Kavanaugh specifically, I disagree with characterizing the situation as one in which he faced punishment without "proof". He was not facing criminal or civil charges, he was being considered for a life-time appointment to the highest court in the U.S. I think part of the bargain that someone makes when they agree to be a nominee for such a position is that they will face a very high level of scrutiny. And the only possible consequence of that scrutiny under consideration was that he might not get the position. I think a reasonable standard of evidence necessary to deny him the position -- given it's importance and the length of the appointment -- is much weaker. I would vote against a nominee facing reasonably credible allegations of sexual misconduct even if I were not very certain they were guilty. That reflects the importance of the position, and the wide availability of qualified candidates without such allegations. I don't feel that this is prejudicial; no one is entitled to a supreme court seat, and the integrity of the court is very important to me. There are caveats here, of course. I would dismiss allegations that were clearly demonstrated to be false, but I don't believe that has happened here.

3) Many liberals view the problem of sexual violence and harassment in context with the fact that the criminal justice system has always been inadequate at protecting women, and for most of our history has been pretty complicit in perpetuating male dominance through sexual violence. Just as a single example, it's not a coincidence that there weren't even such things as laws against marital rape in all states until the early 90s. There's a cultural element to the way many men think about sexual assault allegations, and a lot of tendencies towards disbelieving victims even though false allegations are rare (which is not to say that they aren't serious!), and blaming victims in various ways.

It's also the case that the nature of criminal justice just doesn't work that well for these cases, precisely because there's often a lack of perfectly objective evidence (and I agree with rightwinger that testimony is evidence, n.b. that "evidence" is not "proof"). This is an unfortunate drawback of the standards of evidence we use in criminal cases. Don't get me wrong, we have good reasons for insisting on those standards and there would be other problems with relaxing them, but we should be cautious about the fact that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" almost necessarily means that many victims will never be able to have justice, because it's simply impossible for them to ever meet that standard. That's why rape is so under-reported and why there are relatively few prosecutions. This is a real injustice for women who have little recourse in many cases.

1. Kavanaugh would have lost his job on the circuit court eventually if he had not been promoted to a position that is much more safe, and his reputation as being a fair and upstanding guy trusted by women is still damaged permanently regardless. He was accused of being a pedophile.

2. Marital rape has nothing to do with women, it is about destroying marriage and families. You cannot rape your spouse. All the morons on here who say otherwise are suffering from early political correctness.

On what premise do you validate that Kavanaugh would have been fired from his earlier position? Doesn't the rule of law mandate proof in all crime accusation cases?

Because he is a DC court circuit judge.

They would have found a way to use the local government to destroy him further.

 

[Jackson]

I think the pro-life position becomes particularly incoherent when it insists with absolute moral clarity that life must be preserved at all costs, but takes no interest in the quality of that life -- or the potential for human suffering -- after birth.

For those considering abortion for they do not want nor can support a child, there is an excellent alternative. Giving the child up for adoption. It is naturally a win-win proposition. A childless couple would receive this young person and can give it the love, care and upbringing it deserves.

But, it entails the birth mother to provide the vessel for naturally giving the child the place to grow before birth. And that would mean the birth mother would have to have empathy for this child and care for her body until birth. This unselfish act would be a deal breaker for many.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

As I said, there are like 89 thousand Kavanaugh threads so I'd rather avoid having another one, but I'll offer a few thoughts

1) I think your premise is wrong, re: what liberals believe. You're overgeneralizing from a difference of opinion about a single case.

2) I think we should apply different standards of evidence in different contexts. So for example there is definitely not enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is guilty of a crime in relation to Ford's testimony, and so he should not face any criminal punishment. I doubt there is enough evidence to support a civil judgement either, but I don't really know for sure, and it would be hard to know without a much larger investigation which I assume will never occur.

With regard to Kavanaugh specifically, I disagree with characterizing the situation as one in which he faced punishment without "proof". He was not facing criminal or civil charges, he was being considered for a life-time appointment to the highest court in the U.S. I think part of the bargain that someone makes when they agree to be a nominee for such a position is that they will face a very high level of scrutiny. And the only possible consequence of that scrutiny under consideration was that he might not get the position. I think a reasonable standard of evidence necessary to deny him the position -- given it's importance and the length of the appointment -- is much weaker. I would vote against a nominee facing reasonably credible allegations of sexual misconduct even if I were not very certain they were guilty. That reflects the importance of the position, and the wide availability of qualified candidates without such allegations. I don't feel that this is prejudicial; no one is entitled to a supreme court seat, and the integrity of the court is very important to me. There are caveats here, of course. I would dismiss allegations that were clearly demonstrated to be false, but I don't believe that has happened here.

3) Many liberals view the problem of sexual violence and harassment in context with the fact that the criminal justice system has always been inadequate at protecting women, and for most of our history has been pretty complicit in perpetuating male dominance through sexual violence. Just as a single example, it's not a coincidence that there weren't even such things as laws against marital rape in all states until the early 90s. There's a cultural element to the way many men think about sexual assault allegations, and a lot of tendencies towards disbelieving victims even though false allegations are rare (which is not to say that they aren't serious!), and blaming victims in various ways.

It's also the case that the nature of criminal justice just doesn't work that well for these cases, precisely because there's often a lack of perfectly objective evidence (and I agree with rightwinger that testimony is evidence, n.b. that "evidence" is not "proof"). This is an unfortunate drawback of the standards of evidence we use in criminal cases. Don't get me wrong, we have good reasons for insisting on those standards and there would be other problems with relaxing them, but we should be cautious about the fact that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" almost necessarily means that many victims will never be able to have justice, because it's simply impossible for them to ever meet that standard. That's why rape is so under-reported and why there are relatively few prosecutions. This is a real injustice for women who have little recourse in many cases.

1. Kavanaugh would have lost his job on the circuit court eventually if he had not been promoted to a position that is much more safe, and his reputation as being a fair and upstanding guy trusted by women is still damaged permanently regardless. He was accused of being a pedophile.

2. Marital rape has nothing to do with women, it is about destroying marriage and families. You cannot rape your spouse. All the morons on here who say otherwise are suffering from early political correctness.

On what premise do you validate that Kavanaugh would have been fired from his earlier position? Doesn't the rule of law mandate proof in all crime accusation cases?

Because he is a DC court circuit judge.

They would have found a way to use the local government to destroy him further.

FEDERAL COURT The Local Government has no say.

 

[ptbw forever]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

As I said, there are like 89 thousand Kavanaugh threads so I'd rather avoid having another one, but I'll offer a few thoughts

1) I think your premise is wrong, re: what liberals believe. You're overgeneralizing from a difference of opinion about a single case.

2) I think we should apply different standards of evidence in different contexts. So for example there is definitely not enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is guilty of a crime in relation to Ford's testimony, and so he should not face any criminal punishment. I doubt there is enough evidence to support a civil judgement either, but I don't really know for sure, and it would be hard to know without a much larger investigation which I assume will never occur.

With regard to Kavanaugh specifically, I disagree with characterizing the situation as one in which he faced punishment without "proof". He was not facing criminal or civil charges, he was being considered for a life-time appointment to the highest court in the U.S. I think part of the bargain that someone makes when they agree to be a nominee for such a position is that they will face a very high level of scrutiny. And the only possible consequence of that scrutiny under consideration was that he might not get the position. I think a reasonable standard of evidence necessary to deny him the position -- given it's importance and the length of the appointment -- is much weaker. I would vote against a nominee facing reasonably credible allegations of sexual misconduct even if I were not very certain they were guilty. That reflects the importance of the position, and the wide availability of qualified candidates without such allegations. I don't feel that this is prejudicial; no one is entitled to a supreme court seat, and the integrity of the court is very important to me. There are caveats here, of course. I would dismiss allegations that were clearly demonstrated to be false, but I don't believe that has happened here.

3) Many liberals view the problem of sexual violence and harassment in context with the fact that the criminal justice system has always been inadequate at protecting women, and for most of our history has been pretty complicit in perpetuating male dominance through sexual violence. Just as a single example, it's not a coincidence that there weren't even such things as laws against marital rape in all states until the early 90s. There's a cultural element to the way many men think about sexual assault allegations, and a lot of tendencies towards disbelieving victims even though false allegations are rare (which is not to say that they aren't serious!), and blaming victims in various ways.

It's also the case that the nature of criminal justice just doesn't work that well for these cases, precisely because there's often a lack of perfectly objective evidence (and I agree with rightwinger that testimony is evidence, n.b. that "evidence" is not "proof"). This is an unfortunate drawback of the standards of evidence we use in criminal cases. Don't get me wrong, we have good reasons for insisting on those standards and there would be other problems with relaxing them, but we should be cautious about the fact that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" almost necessarily means that many victims will never be able to have justice, because it's simply impossible for them to ever meet that standard. That's why rape is so under-reported and why there are relatively few prosecutions. This is a real injustice for women who have little recourse in many cases.

1. Kavanaugh would have lost his job on the circuit court eventually if he had not been promoted to a position that is much more safe, and his reputation as being a fair and upstanding guy trusted by women is still damaged permanently regardless. He was accused of being a pedophile.

2. Marital rape has nothing to do with women, it is about destroying marriage and families. You cannot rape your spouse. All the morons on here who say otherwise are suffering from early political correctness.

On what premise do you validate that Kavanaugh would have been fired from his earlier position? Doesn't the rule of law mandate proof in all crime accusation cases?

Because he is a DC court circuit judge.

They would have found a way to use the local government to destroy him further.

FEDERAL COURT The Local Government has no say.

DC is more than just a city.

 

[Jackson]

As I said, there are like 89 thousand Kavanaugh threads so I'd rather avoid having another one, but I'll offer a few thoughts

1) I think your premise is wrong, re: what liberals believe. You're overgeneralizing from a difference of opinion about a single case.

2) I think we should apply different standards of evidence in different contexts. So for example there is definitely not enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is guilty of a crime in relation to Ford's testimony, and so he should not face any criminal punishment. I doubt there is enough evidence to support a civil judgement either, but I don't really know for sure, and it would be hard to know without a much larger investigation which I assume will never occur.

With regard to Kavanaugh specifically, I disagree with characterizing the situation as one in which he faced punishment without "proof". He was not facing criminal or civil charges, he was being considered for a life-time appointment to the highest court in the U.S. I think part of the bargain that someone makes when they agree to be a nominee for such a position is that they will face a very high level of scrutiny. And the only possible consequence of that scrutiny under consideration was that he might not get the position. I think a reasonable standard of evidence necessary to deny him the position -- given it's importance and the length of the appointment -- is much weaker. I would vote against a nominee facing reasonably credible allegations of sexual misconduct even if I were not very certain they were guilty. That reflects the importance of the position, and the wide availability of qualified candidates without such allegations. I don't feel that this is prejudicial; no one is entitled to a supreme court seat, and the integrity of the court is very important to me. There are caveats here, of course. I would dismiss allegations that were clearly demonstrated to be false, but I don't believe that has happened here.

3) Many liberals view the problem of sexual violence and harassment in context with the fact that the criminal justice system has always been inadequate at protecting women, and for most of our history has been pretty complicit in perpetuating male dominance through sexual violence. Just as a single example, it's not a coincidence that there weren't even such things as laws against marital rape in all states until the early 90s. There's a cultural element to the way many men think about sexual assault allegations, and a lot of tendencies towards disbelieving victims even though false allegations are rare (which is not to say that they aren't serious!), and blaming victims in various ways.

It's also the case that the nature of criminal justice just doesn't work that well for these cases, precisely because there's often a lack of perfectly objective evidence (and I agree with rightwinger that testimony is evidence, n.b. that "evidence" is not "proof"). This is an unfortunate drawback of the standards of evidence we use in criminal cases. Don't get me wrong, we have good reasons for insisting on those standards and there would be other problems with relaxing them, but we should be cautious about the fact that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" almost necessarily means that many victims will never be able to have justice, because it's simply impossible for them to ever meet that standard. That's why rape is so under-reported and why there are relatively few prosecutions. This is a real injustice for women who have little recourse in many cases.

1. Kavanaugh would have lost his job on the circuit court eventually if he had not been promoted to a position that is much more safe, and his reputation as being a fair and upstanding guy trusted by women is still damaged permanently regardless. He was accused of being a pedophile.

2. Marital rape has nothing to do with women, it is about destroying marriage and families. You cannot rape your spouse. All the morons on here who say otherwise are suffering from early political correctness.

On what premise do you validate that Kavanaugh would have been fired from his earlier position? Doesn't the rule of law mandate proof in all crime accusation cases?

Because he is a DC court circuit judge.

They would have found a way to use the local government to destroy him further.

FEDERAL COURT The Local Government has no say.

DC is more than just a city.

So the law does not apply in tgis jurisdiction? LOL

 

[OldLady]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

As I said, there are like 89 thousand Kavanaugh threads so I'd rather avoid having another one, but I'll offer a few thoughts

1) I think your premise is wrong, re: what liberals believe. You're overgeneralizing from a difference of opinion about a single case.

2) I think we should apply different standards of evidence in different contexts. So for example there is definitely not enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is guilty of a crime in relation to Ford's testimony, and so he should not face any criminal punishment. I doubt there is enough evidence to support a civil judgement either, but I don't really know for sure, and it would be hard to know without a much larger investigation which I assume will never occur.

With regard to Kavanaugh specifically, I disagree with characterizing the situation as one in which he faced punishment without "proof". He was not facing criminal or civil charges, he was being considered for a life-time appointment to the highest court in the U.S. I think part of the bargain that someone makes when they agree to be a nominee for such a position is that they will face a very high level of scrutiny. And the only possible consequence of that scrutiny under consideration was that he might not get the position. I think a reasonable standard of evidence necessary to deny him the position -- given it's importance and the length of the appointment -- is much weaker. I would vote against a nominee facing reasonably credible allegations of sexual misconduct even if I were not very certain they were guilty. That reflects the importance of the position, and the wide availability of qualified candidates without such allegations. I don't feel that this is prejudicial; no one is entitled to a supreme court seat, and the integrity of the court is very important to me. There are caveats here, of course. I would dismiss allegations that were clearly demonstrated to be false, but I don't believe that has happened here.

3) Many liberals view the problem of sexual violence and harassment in context with the fact that the criminal justice system has always been inadequate at protecting women, and for most of our history has been pretty complicit in perpetuating male dominance through sexual violence. Just as a single example, it's not a coincidence that there weren't even such things as laws against marital rape in all states until the early 90s. There's a cultural element to the way many men think about sexual assault allegations, and a lot of tendencies towards disbelieving victims even though false allegations are rare (which is not to say that they aren't serious!), and blaming victims in various ways.

It's also the case that the nature of criminal justice just doesn't work that well for these cases, precisely because there's often a lack of perfectly objective evidence (and I agree with rightwinger that testimony is evidence, n.b. that "evidence" is not "proof"). This is an unfortunate drawback of the standards of evidence we use in criminal cases. Don't get me wrong, we have good reasons for insisting on those standards and there would be other problems with relaxing them, but we should be cautious about the fact that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" almost necessarily means that many victims will never be able to have justice, because it's simply impossible for them to ever meet that standard. That's why rape is so under-reported and why there are relatively few prosecutions. This is a real injustice for women who have little recourse in many cases.

1. Kavanaugh would have lost his job on the circuit court eventually if he had not been promoted to a position that is much more safe, and his reputation as being a fair and upstanding guy trusted by women is still damaged permanently regardless. He was accused of being a pedophile.

2. Marital rape has nothing to do with women, it is about destroying marriage and families. You cannot rape your spouse. All the morons on here who say otherwise are suffering from early political correctness.

He was accused of being a pedophile.
No, he wasn't.
You cannot rape your spouse.
Of course you can.

I realize you have some social skills issues, but you really really need to study up on how to treat a woman, ptbw. Sexual intercourse can be forced on a woman without her consent, which is what rape is. A husband can do that to his wife just as easily as some creep lurking around in Central Park who grabs whatever jogger happens to be passing by.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You cannot be "the party of science" and continue to see human development in the womb as anything less than a unique human life from the moment of conception. The days of claiming "whatever is in there" was a "clump of cells" is long over and gone. Sure, technically, we are ALL a "clump of cells". But from the moment sperm meets egg, that "clump of cells" has unique human DNA that is not mother, not father, but its own human being.

When it implants and begins to grow, aborting the human is murder.

I've not heard anyone on the left deny that a human embryo or fetus is human, and I agree that such a claim would be false. It is true that people who hold pro-choice positions generally reject the moral intuition that terminating human life at certain stages of development is murder. That intuition does not reduce to an empirical, scientific claim. Sometimes you hear this rejection of the moral principle expressed by someone saying that an embryo or fetus isn't a person. Even if that is a little ambiguous, I think it's clear that they are rejecting the moral equivalence between abortion and legally recognized murder, rather than rejecting the idea that a fetus contains human DNA.

With all due respect, I cannot imagine who you have been talking to "on the left" if you have never heard this.

Also, it is not a "moral intuition" (although I consider "murder" to be a misuse of language). It is a biological, scientific fact that abortion is the killing of a lving human being. WE are not the ones operating solely on emotion on the abortion debate.

Trying to change the subject to "personhood" is not "a little" ambiguous. It's a deliberate attempt to be VERY ambiguous in order to obscure any real debate and to avoid facts.

Some people reject the claim that there is any moral problem related to abortion at all. However, I think a plurality of folks on the left do agree that there is some moral dimension to abortion, and this can be inferred from various survey data, i.e. in the percentage who hold that abortion should be legal only in some circumstances, and the sharp decline in support for legalized abortion in the second trimester. As for me, I also find value in the general moral principle that leads pro-life activists to reject abortion, and so I agree that abortion is morally problematic.

Rank-and-file leftists prefer to just vague the whole thing up in their heads, then shove it off into a corner and never think about it at all. The problem is that this allows high-profile leftists to get more and more extreme on the subject without anyone having the stones to rein them in. And THEY proudly deny any morality to the subject at all, except that "It's mean to not let women kill their babies! You hate women!"

That said, I also think the typical pro-life position on abortion is morally incoherent, and the difficulty I have with it is that pro-life activists seem to extend their concern for the moral problems of abortion only so far as the birth of a child, and no further. This is basically the same objection rightwinger raised, but I'll try to elaborate.

I just heard, "I've been told this, and I just ran with it!" So I shall be fascinated to read further and find out if you actually validate your assertion that "pro-lifers extend their concern only until the birth", or if you just keep jabbering as though it's an established fact. I can assure you right now that, no matter how thoughtful and measured you think your next paragraph is, if it does NOT contain some substantiation, I shall dismiss it and you as an excuse-making partisan hack, and any chance of the logical, well-meaning-on-both-sides conversation you purported to want will be out the window.

The thing that makes abortion a difficult moral problem is that there are competing values at stake. One of those values is that human life is valuable and ought to be protected. But even for pro-life activists that value is not typically taken to be absolute. For example, many people who oppose abortion support the death penalty. Presumably the value they place on justice and retribution overrides the value they place on human life in specific circumstances. My only intent in making the comparison is to draw out the point that it doesn't follow automatically from the fact that an act involves the taking of human life that this same act is murder, or is morally impermissible. In vitro fertilization provides another example of the difficulty with equating "unique human DNA" with a strong legal protection for life. This is one way in which the pro-life position can sometimes be incoherent.

Yup. As I expected. Just throwing out assumptions and accusations as "fact", and then toddling on your merry way, secure in the erroneous belief that you know what conservatives think and believe.

And this is why it's impossible to talk to people on the left, no matter how they wish to play at being reasonable and conciliatory.

 

[well named]

For those considering abortion for they do not want nor can support a child, there is an excellent alternative. Giving the child up for adoption.

I agree that adoption is an alternative in some cases. In line with my comments, my point would be that pro-life advocates would be more consistent in their principles if they also prioritized increased public support for adoption (financial and otherwise) alongside support for contraception and sex ed.

It is a biological, scientific fact that abortion is the killing of a lving human being.

I think you misunderstood the distinction I was making. I agree with what you wrote above. Abortion involves killing a human being. So does in vitro fertilization (in large numbers) given the definition of "human being" being employed, which I stated I have no particular objection to. I was pointing out that the word murder goes beyond merely stating the fact to adding a moral judgement about it, and that moral judgement is not universal.

I haven't had time to read the rest of your post, or some others, but I'll return to them later today...

 

[sartre play]

Thanks well named, any op that includes discussion & not just back & forth mud slinging is most welcome. have to go to work for a while, keep it coming, the life or death topic would like to chime in on later.

 

[well named]

All of the countries who have heavy restrictions on guns are experiencing increased gun crime.

If you want to discuss this it would be helpful to know

a) which countries you have in mind
b) what time periods you are looking at
c) how the data compares to the US over those time periods
d) what conclusions you think can be drawn from that data

(a) and (b) would be enough for me to go try to find recent data myself. It's been a couple years since I've looked in much detail.

 

[well named]

With all due respect, I cannot imagine who you have been talking to "on the left" if you have never heard this.

Trying to change the subject to "personhood" is not "a little" ambiguous. It's a deliberate attempt to be VERY ambiguous in order to obscure any real debate and to avoid facts.

By "this" I meant an assertion that the "clump of cells" is not human. I've heard that particular phrase ("clump of cells") used all the time. The point I was attempting to make is that the phrase is really meant to signal more of a moral disagreement than a disagreement about the science. The phrase is intended to convey the speaker's belief that destroying an embryo or fetus early in pregnancy is not a moral issue in the way that those who say "abortion is murder" contend.

So I shall be fascinated to read further and find out if you actually validate your assertion that "pro-lifers extend their concern only until the birth", or if you just keep jabbering as though it's an established fact.

I was offering my perception of the movement primarily based on my observations of:

1) the arguments and rhetoric I commonly see from pro-life activists (including in the post I responded to)
2) the legislative priorities I see from pro-life politicians, judged by the kinds of bills they write

I didn't intend to suggest that my opinion or perceptions are indisputable facts. As I said in the OP, my goals are to explain how I and other liberals think on the subject. I'm offering my views for the sake of discussion. You're welcome to disagree with me, and in fact I think it would be interesting for you to say a bit more about why you think my perception is wrong. For example, do you disagree with my perception that many religiously motivated pro-life activists are also opposed to programs to promote contraceptive use and sex education? Do you disagree that the majority of pro-life legislation is focused on restricting abortion access over providing support or alternatives? We could try to find some empirical way to measure those questions, although I think that will be a pretty large project.

 

[Cellblock2429]

... [insert your question here]?

I'm new, and I've noticed that conservatives seem to outnumber liberals by quite a bit in this forum. For me, it's sort of like visiting foreign country where you don't quite understand the local culture.

But, it seems to me that beneath the contempt that many of you feel for folks on the political left there's also a large disconnect between what I think of as typical liberal views and your perception of those views. So much so that in many threads it's hard to figure out where to begin to respond.

So! I thought this idea for a thread might be entertaining. The gist is this: say you're baffled by some view that liberals/leftists generally hold. Ask me about it, and I'll try to explain it a little bit.

A few notes:

1) this probably works better if you ask questions about policy preferences, values, or general beliefs about the world (e.g. on the environment, or civil rights, or the criminal justice system, or gender equality, ...) and worse if you ask about obscure current events, which I may or may not know anything about, and on which I won't necessarily know what most liberals think.

2) I may disagree with the premises of your question. I will probably just ignore purely rhetorical/trollish questions unless I think there's some hope of an interesting conversation in it.

3) I don't actually speak for everyone, or even anyone, on the left. I'm not suggesting that only I am allowed to answer or that only my answers count. It's just a goofy idea for a thread.

4) After I try to explain something you are free to insult me and/or liberals in general as suits your mood. Or, really, you don't technically need to wait that long, but it's more interesting if you do, IMO.

/—-/ Liberals dropped off the USMB when Trump kicked Hildabeast to the curb.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Most of the posters on the left on this board that have been here awhile have said that a fetus is not a human. They have argued that until the actual birth a baby is in fact not a baby but a growth in the woman to be dealt with in any manner she sees fit. I have engaged numerous of them on the issue of the fact a baby can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and been told they don't care that abortion is acceptable right up to the last day before birth at the woman's desire.

 

[rightwinger]

Most of the posters on the left on this board that have been here awhile have said that a fetus is not a human. They have argued that until the actual birth a baby is in fact not a baby but a growth in the woman to be dealt with in any manner she sees fit. I have engaged numerous of them on the issue of the fact a baby can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and been told they don't care that abortion is acceptable right up to the last day before birth at the woman's desire.

Show a single post on this board where someone on the left advocated abortion up to the last day before birth