I can’t wait until the new favorites of the political left like Chris Murphy, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Deval Patrick, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Holder, Mitch Landrieu, Steve Bullock and Beto O’Rourke get accused of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. I hope people treat these men in the same fashion that Brett Kavanaguh was treated back in October. I wonder if they would receive the “guilty until proven innocent treatment” that many receive after being accused of something sexual.

Who knows, maybe the social media lynch mob will turn on all of these men like they did when Al Franken was thrown out of the Senate.

Guilty until proven innocent, even without corroborating evidence, is too often the default for jurors in the court of public opinion today.

I am starting to wonder why I haven’t seen a torrent of posts on my social media feeds about this favorite of the left? The most recent accused? Neil deGrasse Tyson. He is cool…or was really cool, right? Is he now a sexual predator because he is accused of something many years ago? 

I had jury duty in the Bronx last week. During the jury selection process, we were asked by the prosecuting attorneys if we would be able to convict two defendants with the oral testimony of one person. They informed us that the person who would be giving the testimony was the alleged victim of a robbery with a firearm. The attorneys asked the jurors if we could decide the fate of two accused men based on that testimony alone. It was one of several thought provoking inquiries asked by the judge, defense attorneys and prosecutors during void dire.

What if the accuser was a person with a criminal record? What if there were no witnesses, DNA or video? What if the accuser was making it all up? What if this was all done as retribution? What if the accuser was actually a victim? How do we know if there was a firearm? What if the accused didn’t testify as to their innocence?

Since the burden of proof is on the district attorney and the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the bar to convict any accused person is high. Most of us agreed that there would have to be more than the word of one person who was accusing the defendants of a crime to send someone away to prison. If it were more than one person testifying, most of us felt there would have to be more information provided to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Shouldn’t that be the case in this new ridiculous court of public opinion that we see nowadays?

I was the last juror to be chosen on this case. I was dismissed from serving due to the fact that I was going to be out of town for part of the trial. I think the judge, the two sides of attorneys and the defendants liked what I had to say about due process and thought I’d be fair. I would have been.

I don’t want criminals running around our streets but then again, I don’t want people to be locked up unjustly. I’ve seen too many miscarriages of justice to flatly believe one side of any argument. Plus, I’ve seen too many people lie, make things up and too many people put in prison for things they didn’t do.

The Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the second week at least, opened my eyes to how our culture seems to have changed the rules when it comes to fairness and due process. I will expand further on my thoughts on that whole debacle in another post. While it was occurring a few months back, I was compelled to speak up on social media. I had a difficult time seeing what people were writing. It was alarming. I felt that I needed to be one of the few people to defend men like Brett who might be accused of things that happened decades ago. I see just how far our culture has gone down the #meetoo rabbit hole. It appears as if we are to have blind faith in causes. Are we to believe women just because they are women, as if we all belong to some magical religion or a  cult that preaches the sanctity of the human female. If one does not fall in line with that line of thought nowadays, you are labeled a misogynist.

That is not only false but it is dangerous. We put ourselves in a precarious position when we have monolithic thinking and fanatical zealousness.

Lets take a look at this new story about Neil deGrasse Tyson. Since he is accused by one or more women should we believe them? Why should we? Will he be arrested for committing a crime or is this a way for someone to tell a story…that may or may not be true. If he is a sexual predator, don’t we want him arrested, tried and convicted of these crimes? If not, what is the point of all this anyway?

I have a friendly reminder, accusations are not proof. They are simply accusations.

Read this:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/