Accusations of sexual assault, such as those against Brett Kavanaugh (pictured above), must have sufficient evidence to properly follow due process. Innocent until proven guilty must be reinstated in American consciousness. (Andrew Harnik/Creative Commons)
Occupying a substantial portion of the Bill of Rights, due process and the rights of the accused are foundational in our justice system. The accused is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof rests on the accuser. Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
When it comes to how we react to alleged sexual assault, however, the exact opposite seems true. The accused is guilty until proven innocent. In this current political climate, sexual assault cases must follow the precedent of the justice system and provide suitable evidence.
The John Doe vs. The Regents of the University of California court case presents a particularly disturbing example of this paradigm shift. “John Doe,” an undergraduate student at University of California, Santa Barbara, was accused of sexually assaulting fellow student “Jane Roe” while the two napped on the same bed after a night of drinking.
Despite two other witnesses in the room who reported nothing that resembled Roe’s claims, Doe was found guilty of sexual assault by the school’s conduct board of sexual assault and was suspended for two years.
Earlier this month, Santa Barbara’s Second Appellate Court ordered the school to reverse John Doe’s suspension, citing the absence of “even a semblance of due process.”
“John Doe was denied access to critical evidence; denied the opportunity to adequately cross-examine witnesses; and denied the opportunity to present evidence in his defense,” Judge Donna D. Geck said according to fire.org.
This is not an isolated case. But if we let it, this could become the norm.
Anyone accused of sexual assault—whether John Doe, Brett Kavanaugh, or anyone accused of a serious crime for that matter—deserves due process. Next to murder, rape and sexual assault are perhaps the most serious accusations one could level.
They are not to be taken lightly on either side, accuser or accused.
“Anyone accused of sexual assault—whether John Doe, Brett Kavanaugh, or anyone accused of a serious crime for that matter—deserves due process. Next to murder, rape and sexual assault are perhaps the most serious accusations one could level. ”
Highlighting the need for due process even more, a 2017 Journal of Forensic Psychology study found that roughly five percent of rape accusations registered with the FBI from 2006 to 2010 were “false and baseless.” Statistically, this is five times higher than the one percent of false reports for other crimes, such as theft and fraud.
For a crime statistically predisposed to more false accusations, due process is imperative. It is becoming self-evident, however, that this is not the case.
Even the accusation of sexual assault outside of a judicial context can be equally as damaging—in some instances, even more so. The mere thought that someone would hurt another human being in such a horrific way can forever poison their character, whether they truly did it or not.
It is critical that we as members of society do not rush to any conclusions that could irreparably damage a person, but rather wait to cast judgement until we see proper evidence. At times it seems impossible—for a United States senator, a juror or an average person just wanting to know the truth—to remain impartial.
We must stand with those who put the guilty in jail, but that cannot happen if they stray from the principles of our justice system and Constitution.