OlfinBedwere said:
But the world outside of court isn't defined in such strictly binary terms as "guilty" or "innocent". It's possible to think that, for instance, while there isn't enough evidence to prove that Kavanaugh committed the acts he's being accused of, the way he's handled the situation indicates that he's too intemperate for the role of a Supreme Court justice. |
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with your first sentence. The issue is basically what should be done with unproven accusations, and there are only two options. You either say concrete proof is needed and continue with whatever the accusations hoped to stop, or you give in to the accusations and drop whatever was supposed to happen. That's it. Guilt and innocence are perhaps not black and white, but what you do with accusations is. You could argue that a third option would be to delay (even more) whatever is supposed to happen to "investigate", but that's just putting off one of the only two options.
I don't want to come off as agressive, but how exactly is someone supposed to act when their whole life is being smeared, when they are being attacked and condemned without a shred of proof? I don't know, I just feel like you think there is a certain way people are supposed to behave when facing an injustice and if someone deviates from it, it can only mean that they are guilty or not fit. How should he have reacted? It's so easy to say he should have been more calm or this or that, but we don't know how we'd react until we are in his shoes, and his reaction was completely reasonable for someone who risks not just losing "a promotion" but his entire reputation. Maybe we should refrain from judging him?
