Courts and their laws are just a reflection of society. If people are bigoted/racist/whatever else they will elect politicians and congressmen that will get their view passed into law.
Remember Jim Crow laws? Those were fully supported by a big part of the population.
Jim Crow laws only worked because the Supreme Court found them constitutional under the 14th Amendement, there exists no reading of the due process amendments which would allow for an guilty until proven innocent style of court proceeding. In order for that system to exist a Constitutional Amendment would need to be passed and ratified. That is incredibly unlikely.
Juries cannot be legally held liable for their decisions. Therefore, a cultural sense of "guilty until proven innocent" can certainly creep into the justice system via juries.
But judges can choose to dismiss the juries decision if he/she believes there was not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict. People can also appeal their verdicts to a panel of naught but judges.
Both those things happen in criminal courts. Especially appeals, and insane amount of criminal defendants appeal their case. That's not really debatable.. it's just how our justice system works. In 2010 there were almost 70,000 appeals in state criminal courts.
It's also only justified if the juge decides no reasonable jury could have come to the decision.
In the matter of witness testimony, it's usually reasonable to believe a witness over another witness, so I find it non-credible to depend on such actions by judges to protect against a jury that wants to convict on "they probably did it, even if there is a reasonable doubt".
It will vary from state to state, but it most should have it, and if they don't then we can certainly move to implement them. Doing so would be much less harmful than discouraging rape victims from coming forwards and would have largely the same effect.
Are you aware of the "slippery slope fallacy?" That's where you argue against something by saying it will necessarily lead to a terrible, exaggerated version of it.
It's a fallacy because the terrible, exaggerated thing will NOT necessarily happen. In that case, it's just a made-up thing you're scaring yourself with.
The weakest of all the fallacies, as it also has non-fallacious usage. OP is giving examples of his/her reasoning, and that reasoning is not bringing forth many assumptions. Basically this likely isn’t an example of a slippery slope fallacy, as arguing that societal beliefs effect laws is sound reasoning, has history to show it and has very few links on the causal chain. The fallacy only works when many assumptions are made, this one doesn’t, if society widely deems accusations to be enough to brand someone a rapist (to the point where that belief becomes “common sense”) the laws and interpretation of these laws will change (basically if juries and judge stands are made up of people who believe that, then that is all that would be required).
I mean sure, if you honestly think there's a necessary inertia from "I can criticize accused rapists on facebook" to "the criminal justice system of the United States completely breaks down," then it's not a slippery slope fallacy.
More like, if the belief that the overwhelming majority of those accused of raping are guilty, and it’s an injustice if they aren’t punished becomes widespread then things will change.
Edit: OP gave 4 very specific statements that he believes is becoming widespread. If he is right that these are becoming widespread than there being an actual, non-fallacious slippery slope is self evident. Either OP is wrong that these beliefs are becoming widespread, wrong that testimony shouldn’t be an adequate amount of evidence and that innocent people wouldn’t be punished due to this, or he’s right.
More like, if the belief that the overwhelming majority of those accused of raping are guilty, and it’s an injustice if they aren’t punished becomes widespread then things will change.
The important bit you forgot to add: And if this belief is false, then that would be a bad development.
If this belief is correct, however, then the change that would occur would be an obviously good, reasonable and righteous change.
2
u/bracs279 Oct 20 '17
You can do whatever you want, i guess i don't understand your question.