Aug 012019
 
 August 1, 2019  Posted by  Court, U.S.

This post will undoubtedly incense some readers who will want to know why PogoWasRight.org is not coming out to blast Scott Greenfield for his obvious unwillingness to just take a claim as proven.  But if you don’t read Scott’s post and you don’t appreciate the importance of what he is saying — and has repeatedly said over the years — you are part of the problem of eroding civil liberties.

Scott writes:

Star University of Wisconsin wide receiver Quintez Cephus is on trial. No wait, that’s former wide receiver, as he was thrown off the team upon the accusation, ending his college football career and any hope he had of going pro. It’s not as if he spent most of his life working toward such a future that an accusation should be enough to kill it dead in his tracks.

But hey, he’s a guy, a football player no less, and even though he’s black (as are a disproportionate number of accused), isn’t it far more important to feel badly for the accuser, any accuser as long as it’s a “she,” then consider destroying the guy’s future? Something has to give, right?

Thus far, his accuser has testified that she was too drunk to consent to sex. The video of shows otherwise. Then there were the texts.

If you keep reading his post, Scott goes on to criticize Judge William Hanrahan’s reported denial of a defense discovery request. The denial was made on the basis of  allegedly protecting the victim’s privacy… and decency. But as Scott writes:

There is no “right” to privacy for an accuser. If you accuse, you cannot conceal the evidence behind a claim that it would expose your personal information. Even worse is the claim of “decency,” not merely a meaningless vagary, but the notion that it’s somehow more decent to convict an innocent man for a crime that never happened.

I don’t know the facts of this particular case, but it seems that we are spending more and more time living in a world where we must  “believe the victim” and protect the alleged victim — even if it means the courts  no longer uphold a defendant’s rights to obtain exculpatory evidence.

Be careful when you push for more “victim rights” that you not undermine “innocent until proven guilty” and the right to a fair trial.

Read all of Scott’s post on Simple Justice.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.