Innocent until proven guilty

Just saying.  Already rock'em, sock'em cowboy Roy Moore has been accused, and found worthy of execution.  Or at least execution based on our modern standards: destroy the reputation and end his career and subsequent threat to the cause.  If he's guilty, then let justice put him where he belongs.  But just for laughs, let's wait and see if he is guilty first.

As I said here, women have every right to be heard.  They have no right to be believed.  In fact, the burden of proof is on the accuser, no matter who it is.  I know that little caveat has ebbed and flowed over the years.

When John Walsh began his crusade against criminals in the 1980s, Larry King famously rebuked him and reminded him that we are innocent until proven guilty.  Not to me, Walsh responded.  And for a private citizen's opinion, that's true.  If we think that someone is guilty, that's our right.  We just have no right to expect sentencing to occur based on our own outside opinion.

Fast forward to the Anita Hill scandal, and it got fuzzy.  Without saying a woman's accusation was law, we were told under that a woman accusing a man of something like sexual harassment or assault must be listened to, respected, and never attacked or accused herself.

Of course that all ended during the Clinton years, when it became fashionable to trash and hash the women accusing Clinton of rape, assault and harassment.  In fact, destroying not only the accusers but those aiding the accusers was quite the national pastime in the 90s.  So we were back to innocent until proven guilty.  Or in that case, innocent because all accusers are whores and trailer park trash.

But now it's now, and now is always the standard for morals and truth in postmodern parlance.  Once again, our liberal society displays its here today, gone later today approach to morality, standards and ethics.  Once again we're back to a woman's accusation being settled, sentencing to commence presently.  It began with the whole college campus assault backlash, where increasingly a woman could pretty much accuse a male student of assault at any point in the relationship, and garner a sympathetic hearing.  And that sympathy often included attacking the accused and imposing penalties based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Then Harvey Weinstein, liberal donor juggernaut, was accused of being accused of things people had snickered about for years.  And now it's this.  It's not just Mr. Moore, whose accusation straight to stake burning brought this to my attention.  A dear friend was falsely accused of sexual harassment by a coworker and nearly had his career ruined. She thankfully recanted, but before that, he was clearly guilty and good luck proving innocence.  From the moment he was accused, his guilt was assumed.

And this is not all.  Every day now we're seeing a floodgate of accusations.  That's fine.  If they are true, then it's good that women are standing up and calling out real abuse and criminal activity.  But they are still just accusing.  It remains to be seen if these women, or any accusers, are correct.  Whether it be Weinstein, or Spacey, a Catholic priest, a teacher, Moore, or anyone, innocence is still the default assumption when it comes to moving to consequences for accused actions.  Opinions are worth their weight in feathers.  But let's hold before we expect executions to take place.  Anything else, and goodbye freedom.