How judges and prosecutors get sexual assault cases wrong
Anyone familiar with the Scottsboro Boys or “To Kill a Mockingbird” will be familiar with the need for due process in sexual assault allegations. The often “he said/she said” nature of these cases make them especially susceptible to false allegations. Unfortunately, there is continuing pressure to reduce even basic due process protections and to prosecute unfounded cases.I think the Kavanaugh hearing was an example of this kind of bias and it looks like the left is most likely to push this kind of bias.
In one recent Nebraska case, for example, prosecutors charged a man with sexual assault even though the accuser changed her story numerous times, destroyed evidence and made unsubstantiated allegations in two unrelated cases. The case was so weak a jury acquitted him in less than an hour.
In another recent Nebraska case, a man was prosecuted for sexual assault despite substantial uncertainty any assault had occurred and DNA evidence that showed there had been no sexual contact between the parties. He was also acquitted.
In addition, prosecutors and police are being pressured to abandon objective investigation techniques and to instead “start by believing,” be “victim-centered” or “believe survivors.” One result is cases are increasingly being brought that have no corroborating evidence to support the accuser’s allegations, something that rarely happens in other cases. These practices are unsound from an investigatory perspective and constitutionally suspect because they encourage fact-finders to abandon the constitutional presumption of innocence.