Brett Kavanaugh's Problem of Proving a Negative

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images file

Time magazine declared that the denial of my motion to track sexual predators who work as clergy in one of America's largest Protestant denominations "one of the top ten most underreported stories in America" in 2008.

Holding accountable perpetrators of sexual assaults and giving support to victims is a decades-long desire of mine.

I believe it is high time that America wakes up to the problem of sexually predatory behavior and strengthens the laws that hold perps accountable. In other words, I laud the work done in the Bill Cosby court case.

But read carefully the following paragraph.

In the courts of America, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of the claimant, not the defendant. The defendant is to be initially presumed innocent and to receive the benefit of the doubt, while the claimant bears the burden to prove his or her claim. 

No matter how empathetic and sympathetic we feel toward victims of sexual abuse, to maintain a civilized society, we must never forsake individual liberties for the sake of cultural sensitivities.

There is a gross imbalance between the time and effort of making a claim of sexual impropriety with the time and effort of disproving a claim.

That's why the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the defendant, and Americans should fear any process where the defendant has the onus (burden) to disprove a claim. Flipping the burden of proof to the defendant from the claimant is a threat to liberty in a civilized culture.

During the Salem witch trials, women were tortured and killed simply because men claimed they were witches and the women were wrongly burdened to prove they were not. 

It's where we get the phrase "witch hunt."

In civilized societies regulated by law, a claimant must prove that something did happen rather than a defendant being burdened to prove that something did not happen. It is much easier to prove a positive than it is a negative.

Claims of sexual abuse and inappropriate sexual behavior have been made against Brett Kavanaugh, nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Most reports of sexual assault, abduction, or other serious sexual crimes are true.

However, it is possible that someone might make a false claim of sexual assault, and the consequences can be horrific. It is also possible that a victim of sexual assault can misidentify the perpetrator and not lie about what happened, but simply be mistaken about the person who did it. The consequences are equally horrific.

That's why the burden of proof should always be on the claimant and the presumption of innocence on the accused until the evidence is presented and a judgment is made. 

The important part of today's congressional hearings is that no American should place the burden of proving a sexual assault did not take place on Brett Kavanaugh. 

If the burden of proof is not met by the claimants, then Brett Kavanaugh should be appointed to the Supreme Court. 

If we flip the burden of proof in America, our country will be entering a very dangerous time indeed. 

Think Salem witch trials.