It’s not just the impeachment..apparently prosecutors are beginning to adopt the Democratic Party’s theory that it is appropriate to force a trial when there is no chance at conviction just to stigmatize the accused. This is a clear breach of prosecutor ethics, but ethics schmethics, the ends justify the means, right?
The area in which this despicable strategy is surfacing is—and this should be no surprise—the realm of #Me Too. In Maine, Natasha Irving , who is the top prosecutor for Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc and Waldo counties, wants to reform how the legal system prosecutes sexual assault cases, believing all women so those who come forward know they’ll be “supported.” This means, according to Irving, that prosecutors shouldn’t decline to prosecute a sexual assault case just because they “think it’s too hard to prove.”
“Individually, I think that response is very damaging to a survivor,” she says. “If they weren’t believed initially, they don’t have faith that they’re going to be believed if they come forward again. Or that they somehow will be put on trial for what happened instead of the perpetrator. There’s a lot of shame and blame that the victims often carry.”
Yes, that’s a problem. A greater problem is prosecutors bring cases to trial when the don’t have enough evidence to prove the defendant guilty. Then they are just counting on an incompetent jury, which isn’t that much of a longshot. The attitude Irving is endorsing is how black men end up in prison for murders they didn’t commit.
Oh, now, come on… she’s just advocating prosecutions based on the word of a single witness for rape, not murder. Big difference!
No, in fact there’s no difference. The prosecution ethics are exactly the same for all crimes. Applying different standard based on the gender of an accuser is denial of equal rights and an unethical abuse of state power.
Irving says she has simplified the criteria for how her office will prosecute sexual assault allegations to a two-step process:
- Is there a credible allegation?
- Is the victim willing to move forward with prosecution knowing they might have to testify publicly?
Ah. The Kavanaugh approach. The method employed by universities after the Obama “Dear Colleague” letter.
The objective in all this is to smear the alleged perpetrator; this follows the strategy the Democrats followed in their impeachment plot. They knew they didn’t have a cae for impeachment; they knew they would lose the trial in the Senate. But they felt the stigma applied to the President would be worth the effort. Even with the inevitable acquittal, the impeachment would mean “a permanent asterisk” next to Trumps’ name.
An acquittal for rape or sexual assault does not erase the stigma of being tried for such a crime. This using the process as the punishment, setting out to ruin a man’s reputation without just cause. Someone tried for rape may lose his job, family and more. That’s great, Irving says. It will encourage victims to come forward. “We don’t want law enforcement or prosecutors to ever think that something is a ‘he said she said.’” she explains…even when that’s what it is. Irving wants to encourage false accusations because, after all, there aren’t that many of them. “Only” 2%-8% of sexual assault accusations reported to law enforcement turn out to be false, according to Maine’s statistics.
Natasha Irving is unfit to be a prosecutor. She has a toxic bias and conflict of interest, and is advocating conduct that violates the Maine Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.7 b (personal conflicts of interest) and 3.8 (Duties of a Prosecutor.)
She must be removed immediately, before she ruins any more lives.
______________________________
Use the Twitter link to share on Facebook: https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1224016350311583746
Ethics Alarms 
This reminds me of Pelosi’s claim that you cannot have an acquittal without a fair trial. For someone so committed to ensuring the Constitution is followed what part of innocent until proven guilty do these people not understand.
Justice is no longer a goal. The goal is to amass power throughthe judiciary. So, where is the Maine Bar Association on this? I want to know how one defines credible. Would this prosecuter pursue a sexual assault case against a female perpetrator based solely on the accusation by a male “victim”?
There is this querstion on Quora.
http://www.quora.com/Only-5-of-criminal-accusations-are-false-Why-do-we-need-the-Innocence-Project
Only 5% of criminal accusations are false. Why do we need the Innocence Project?
These answers are so fucking obvious.
How can anyone claim that “Only” 2%-8% of sexual assault accusations reported to law enforcement turn out to be false” is an argument?
Thanks, Michael—I was going to expand on that exact point, but didn’t in the interest of length.
Especially when, as you look at the stats which spawned that statistic, that’s 2-8% of accusations which are provably, obviously false. There’s whole other group of unlikely to be true, a group of impossible to knows, a group of probably trues, and another 2-8% on the other end of the bell curve of absolutely, provably trues.
So when they say 2-8% are false, they’re implying that 92-98% are true. When in reality, the number is likely in the 30-50% range, which also puts it right in line with false accusations of about every other crime on the books. It also puts it at number 3 of my favorite fake stats, right there with 77% of every dollar and 50% of all marriages end in divorce.
Irrational social justice warriors, and people like Natasha Irving, have infiltrated all aspects of our society and are perforating everything right down to public education with absurd ideas most of which are driven by emotional hysteria. The hippies of the 50’s thru 70’s and their indoctrinated children have infected all aspects of our society with a cancer that is dumbing down a huge chunk of our society into a non-logical, non-critical thinking, emotion-driven, tunnel-vision, hive-minded, emotional troglodyte drones and their efforts have driven divisive wedges deep into the social structure of the United States. The ridiculousness from these people is just one of the side effects of apathy. We as a society are reaping the “benefits” of apathy.
I wonder if the Maine AG, or whoever oversees prosecutors in the state, has a Professional Standards section. If so, that section needs to start looking into this. They won’t though, because Maine is in the hands of the Democratic Party now, who are all about pandering to anyone who claims to be a victim.
Remember the good old days when Democrats were into lynching?
Who was their favored victim class at the time?
And who still, as a percentage of population, gets accused of these crimes the most.
Hint — it isn’t white males. Whites are arrested at approximately twice the rate of African Americans, despite making up more than 5 times more of the population.
If Republicans were advocating this same idea, do you suppose the Left would point out this disparity?
I’m thinking yes…
When I bring these sorts of incidents up to my wife, you know examples of political, judicial, or ethical malfeasance perpetrated by the progressive left, and how wide spread it is becoming through all levels of our society-I inevitably get ‘hand waved’ away and told either:
A. “It’s just a small but loud vocal minority that don’t have any real political or societal power-and it’s just one incident that is being blown out of proportion.”
Or
B. “That’s just a right-wing conspiracy theory, because the New York Times/WaPo/Rachel Maddow said so.”
Breaks my heart, because I know she’s smarter than that-but how does one go about breaking one’s spouse out of an echo chamber?
I don’t know. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” comes to mind.
The Johnny Depp-Amber Heard fiasco is a celebrity bonanza of why women shouldn’t automatically be believed. Yet, I still read justifications of Heard because, you know, patriarchy….
The animosity towards men has become a bias that has prosecuted and persecuted individuals across the US. Duke isn’t an isolated incident. The Rolling Stone article isn’t an isolated incident. Kavanaugh isn’t an isolated incident.
Check.
Here’s Ann Althouse on the Amber-Johnny matter: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2020/02/babe-youre-not-punched-i-dont-know-what.html
Not sure about Althouse’s characterization of Heard as the more intelligent of the two. (I may be missing the intended snark.)
From the Women’s March webpage:
“Patriarchy is our judge
That imprisons us at birth…
It’s femicide…
And the rapist WAS you…
And the rapist IS you…
Its the cops…
It’s The judges…
It’s The system…
It’s The president…”
Unless the president referenced is Clinton, it’s pure TDS.
Yeah, I thought AA was a little quick to make that assessment.
This animosity against men would not be possible without sex traitors.