Repealing “innocent until proven guilty” in Maine

Summary: A DA in Maine has in effect repealed “innocent until proven guilty” for rape, using the judicial process to smear and bankrupt the accused – even without evidence of guilt. This makes a mockery of due process. It is another fundamental right going down the drain. It won’t be the last, unless we act.

 

In November 2018, Natasha Irving was elected District Attorney for Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc and Waldo counties in Maine. Her campaign portrait is as traditional as the 1960s Betty Crocker. Now in office, she begins to implement a radical fourth-wave feminist program – with women more equal than men. WGME reports the news – with, of course, a feminist spin. Let’s look at this.

“{She} says it’s time to reform how the legal system prosecutes sexual assault cases, so victims who come forward know they’ll be supported. Irving says prosecutors shouldn’t decline to prosecute a case just because they ‘think it’s too hard to prove.’ ‘Individually, I think that response is very damaging to a survivor. …”

When reading Irving, note that she describes “accusers” as “victims” – assuming that their claims are valid and that any man accused of rape is guilty. She makes no mention of the presumption of innocence or any rights of the accused.

“Prosecutors might worry if a jury will find the victim’s story believable, in the absence of firm evidence. If a victim was under the influence of alcohol when the alleged assault occurred, traditionally the case is viewed as being ‘very weak,’ according to Irving. People tend to question the credibility of sexual assault allegations, according to Irving.”

Of course people question the credibility of sexual assault claims. People lie. Claims of rape are an effective way to destroy a man. All claims need to be professionally investigated and evaluated.

“But, only 2 to 8 percent of sexual assault accusations reported to law enforcement turn out to be false, according to the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which is on par with other violent crimes.”

This is an often-debunked lie. That number refers only to cases that have been proven false. Nobody has done the expensive research to estimate the number. As Ashe Schow said: “Using the same logic employed by Irving, one could say just 3% to 5% of rape accusations are true, since that’s how many go to trial and result in a guilty finding.” See more about this lie here. Note how many high-profile rape cases prove to be false accusations.

“Irving has simplified the criteria for how her office will prosecute sexual assault allegations to a two-step process.

1. Is there a credible allegation?

2. Is the victim willing to move forward with prosecution knowing they might have to testify publicly? …

That is sketchy. As we learned from the Kavanaugh affair, feminists “believe the victim” – so that all accusations are “credible.” Many said that they have psychic ability to determine if somebody is lying.

“‘I do think personally, I would rather show a victim that we will fight for them, than [rejecting a case] because it’s too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt,’ Irving said. ‘We don’t want law enforcement or prosecutors to ever think that something is a ‘he said she said.’”

That’s quite mad. Many rape cases are “he said, she said” because there are neither witnesses nor physical evidence of rape. How can she say that with no pushback from others in the judicial and law enforcement agencies?

“Since ‘rapes aren’t [typically] occurring in front of an audience,’ Irving said prosecutors need to think outside of the box in terms of proving that an assault occurred. …”

Buzzword Bingo: “think outside of the box.” What does that mean?

“Trauma also can cloud a victim’s memory, Clements said, and can fuel misperceptions that a victim is changing their story if their narrative evolves. ‘Instead of that being used against them in terms of “Well she’s saying this now,” it needs to be recognized as a sign of neurobiological trauma that has happened to the body,’ Clements said.”

Irving is systematically removing the grounds to challenge an accuser’s testimony.

What she is really doing

“Few people in the criminal justice system are as powerful as the prosecutor. …politically powerful, directly elected and independent of almost any oversight, and substantially better positioned than defense attorneys. …

“{They} have the unreviewable ability to decide whether to file charges against someone who has been arrested, and they face almost no oversight about what charges to file …prosecutors appear to be using it in increasingly aggressive ways these days.”
— John Pfaff in Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform (2017).

This policy will allow D.A. Irving to use her discretionary powers to destroy men accused of rape – even if there is no evidence. She will use publicity to smear him: business contacts dry up, fired from jobs, and ejected from community organizations. From the combination of lost income and ruinous legal expenses, bankruptcy is likely. That is power, but it is not justice. As the saying goes …

“You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.”

Defense attorney Scott H. Greenfield takes a deep look at this in “Prosecute, Smear, Acquit.” Even if the victim of Irving’s persecution wins in court …

“Even acquitted, the belief of guilt isn’t dissipated. After all, juries don’t return verdicts of ‘innocent,’ but not guilty. And as the presumption of innocence is reduced to a ‘legal technicality’ rather than a tenet of law, there is no way to overcome the taint.”

We deserve to lose our rights

“Our liberty is protected by “above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America; a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.”
— James Madison in The Federalist Papers #57.

Slowly our rights are being stripped away. The police can seize our property without a warrant, without being charged with a crime – let alone a conviction. Obama ordered hits on US citizens, violating not just the Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution (prohibiting Bills of Attainder) but Clause 39 of Magna Carta (1215). Last week I wrote about Congresswoman Castor telling Google to fix free speech.

Now Leftists want to strip away an even more fundamental right: the presumption of innocence, which goes back to the 6th Century Code of Justinian. We see that in the sexual harassment kangaroo courts in universities. We saw that in the Kavanaugh hearings. Now we see a DA make it part of the legal system. It is the next step in the collapse of our criminal justice system (see my posts about this below).

This is how our system now works. Laws are so 20th century. This is how life works. A people who will not fight to keep their rights will lose them. It is the Great Circle of Life. We can still change, but it becomes more difficult with each passing day. Election 2020 is another opportunity to make your voice heard. Make it count.

“{W}hatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, {liberty} must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.”
— Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist papers #84. He is speaking about freedom of the press, but this is the general tenor of the Papers regarding our liberty.

Conclusions

The authors of The Federalist Papers believed that the Republic’s success required more than belief in a political ideology. It requires a burning desire for self-government and a willingness to fight to defend the Republic. Despite the poetry of the Declaration, freedom is never free.

Election 2020 is another opportunity to make your voice heard. Make it count.

For More Information

Ideas! For some shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.”

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about ways to reform America, about police, about police brutality, about justice in America, and especially these …

1. More about the collapse of the American Criminal Justice System.
2. Final thoughts about America’s Criminal Justice System.
3. The Disgrace of Our Criminal {in}Justice System, and hints of reform in the air!
4. Police grow more powerful; the Republic slides another step into darkness. Can cellphone cameras save us?
5. News good & bad about the fantastic growth of America’s security services.
6. We get a new police for our New America, but prefer not to see.
7. Ways to reform our criminal injustice system.
8. No need for police reform, since only criminals have trouble with police!
9. Learning about the police to understand why they so often act badly.

Books about police in our New America

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America by Radley Balko (2006).

A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State by John T. Whitehead (2013).

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces by Radley Balko (2014).

Prison Break: Why Conservatives Turned Against Mass Incarceration by David Dagan and Steven Teles (2016). Dagan is a journalist with a PhD in political science. Teles is an Assc. Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins.

Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America by James Forman Jr. (2017). He is a Professor of Law at Yale. See my review.

Locked In by John F. Pfaff (2017) – “The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform.” He is a Professor of Law at Fordham. See my review of this important book. Also, see the review by Joseph M. Bessette in the Claremont Review of Books.

The Collapse of American Criminal Justice by William J. Stuntz (2011). He was a Professor of Law at Harvard. See some excerpts here.