The presumption of innocence until or unless guilt is proven . . .

Its a mainstay of our English/ American history founded legal system. I don't know where it started; I know some accused  Anglo-Saxons employed "oath helpers", individuals willing to swear  (in a time when an oath put one's soul at hazard),to the veracity of the accused's protestations of innocence. I do not know what other factors. subjective or objective, were considered.  I'm confident that by the late 18th century founding of America, knowledge among our founding fathers of the ability of monarchy, of nobility, of high clergy and of their dependents to summarily ruin or end lives prompted measures meant to protect the accused against such as torture and the presumption of guilt upon accusation.  Can it be that their concern is no longer timely?  All educated westerners must needs recoil from such a supposition but principled intellectuals must now be willing to defend it against a new and appalling attack from those who  believe that evil and fell intent assuredly accrues to an entire group,  (eg. today, all who have penises).

The view, expressed by some radical feminists, that all men are potential rapists, is fundamental to the conviction championed by Dems that Dr. Ford is unassailably believable. Enabled by this is the principle that any man, upon identification  by any woman as an attacker ( or for that matter, any manner of oppressor of women) is, by definition, guilty.  The central argument against this presented by our legal tradition is  that guilt must be proven, not innocence, upon principled and ordered examination of objective factors particular to the accused individual.    Is this a defendable position?  Has history brought us to a point where this heretofore fundamental assumption must be reexamined?

Are all men potential rapists?  No!  Because as any man knows the act of penetration  is short circuited by emotional upheaval in normal men.  Sociopaths are free of such psychological sanctions and can  function without the torment of conscience. Then, Susan Brownmiller; do you maintain that all men are sociopathic?  The assumption that all men are capable of such evil  is a tactical principle championed often  by women  bearing a myriad of animi, justified and unjustified, against some men and determined to exact revenge on all men.

What about the heartfelt assumption of some women, a reaction to true and widespread offense, that all physically defined members of a certain group, men, are by definition guilty and should, accordingly,  receive that which was visited upon the guilty heretofore by due process?  Is the assumption of innocence outmoded? Has it served them badly?

The consequences of such an assumption must be considered. For example,man hating white women, regardless of their freely chosen actions, might well be assumed by members of minorities to also be automatically responsible for racial injustice.

The initial presumption of innocence was a choice made by the civilizations born of English history. It was assumed that this would be  productive of justice more often than not and that that, in the absence of human omniscience, was the best we could do. Today, in much of the West we see ferocious, widespread rejection of that principle by groups seeking redress for substantial claims of widespread  injustice against many women. Why?

First, because it is convenient and if successful can yield a satisfying sense of retribution well done. Second, the continuing widespread commission of abuse of women persuades some women that they have no choice. Third, Marxism, which is the fount of radical feminism, fully endorses the proscription and condemnation of entire groups  for which it assumes that all members either participate in or willingly benefit from the wrongs ascribed to them by those who perceive they are oppressed. Fourth, the American legal system has been seriously compromised by a doctrine grounded in the last fifty years, again with Marxist inspiration and instruction, that our legality is simply a sordid history of dominant groups perpetuating their sway and that that justifies rejecting legal, philosophical and political verities painfully evolved over centuries, usually in often courageous opposition to injustice.

A salient characteristic of our progress in rendering justice has been the European Enlightenment guided  replacement of subjective procedures(emotion based or irrational standards such as belief in witchcraft or ambiguous signs and omens) with objective requirements (eg. evidence, due process based on the rule of law, which in principle eschew emotion, unverifiable perceptions and prejudgement). Could this have evolved and can it continue to be refined without the primary presumption of innocence, fealty to which demands strict and exhaustive investigation and cross examination, even more so in an information rich world?  I think not. 

Some historians believe history is cyclical; are we returning to days when oath helpers, trial by ordeal or combat and other mostly subjective methods of determination of culpability ruled? The process which has "tried" Judge Kavanugh's fitness for office by emphasizing emotion, precondemnation of half of the human race, and reckless reliance on juvenile hearsay, suggests a highly disturbing trend in that direction by a sizeable and much misled faction of our polity.  Jack