In Mid Coast Maine there is a district where there is no due process, no assumption of innocence. Maine is adjacent to New Hampshire to our east. It is down east, don’t ya know? Ashe Schow has written an article for the “DailyWire.com” about a Maine prosecutor.
This attorney has vowed to prosecute people accused of sexual assault. Sounds laudable so far right?
The commitment
But what is different about this prosecutor is the commitment made. This District Attorney pledges to do so even if there is not enough evidence to prove the accused committed the crime. We all need to think about that. There are times when prosecutors do exercise discretion in what and when to prosecute. However, in this case, the prosecutor is executing a policy that is beyond the authority of the office.
WGME of Portland reported District Attorney Natasha Irving said she would try to reform the legal system. Her chosen method of reform is the prosecution of cases previously deemed “too hard to prove.” She said prosecutors shouldn’t decline to take on such cases. Her reasoning is “that response is very damaging to a survivor…”
From her statement it should be inferred she believes every accuser is a “survivor.” We know that is factually incorrect. Attorney Irving serves Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and Waldo counties in Maine. That is Maine’s central coast. She also repeats the misleading statistic “2% to 8% of sexual assault accusations are false”. The number refers only to cases that have been proven false. The real number is unknown.
What will the result be?
Using the same logic employed by Irving, one could say 3% to 5% of rape accusations are true. That is how many go to trial and result in a guilty finding. Given the veracity of those statistics: Why is the professional behavior of the District Attorney, not prosecutorial misconduct? Why isn’t this attorney answering before the bar? Does Maine really support having District Attorneys who bring cases without evidence? What is the purpose of the legislature? What is the difference between the Irving approach and a lynch mob?
Irving explains the two criteria she will use to bring forward rape allegations: 1. Is the allegation credible? Judging from Irving’s statements it’s hard to see her believing many allegations aren’t credible, and 2. Is the accuser, which WGME calls a “victim”, willing to go forward with the case and potentially testify?
That’s it. That’s all it will take for Irving to drag someone through a lengthy court battle even if it’s obvious they will be found not guilty. As criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield wrote on his blog Simple Justice. Irving’s approach seems to be about smearing the accused rather than obtaining justice in any particular case:
“ This isn’t to say that prosecutors should reject any case that isn’t a slam dunk, but to prosecute men based on the litany of rationalizations, as proffered by the “experts” who teach the jury what they’re to believe to be fact, when the evidence at best fails to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a deliberate abuse of power. Ironically, it’s the same abuse complained of by reform prosecutors in any other prosecution not involving an accusation of sexual assault. Go figure.”
Defense counsel’s view
Irving said herself that she “would rather show a victim that we will fight for them, than [rejecting a case] because it’s too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Irving equates accusers to victims. This bias is prevalent in campus sexual assault policies and #MeToo victimology. Everyone who makes an allegation immediately receives treatment as a victim or a “survivor,” no matter the evidence. This stance turns “innocent until proven guilty” on its head. It implies that since the person is being called a victim, the person the victim accuses must be guilty. It is a mockery of due process.
“We don’t want law enforcement or prosecutors to ever think that something is a ‘he said she said,’” Irving said. But many if not most allegations of sexual assault are a “he said, she said” situation.
Greenfield explains what the result will be of Irving’s #MeToo style “reform”:
“Will it work? First, it doesn’t have to in order to accomplish its goal. As the saying goes, you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride. Men will be arrested and prosecuted, their faces and the accusations against them will appear in the media. They will lose their jobs, their homes, their families and be criminals. Even acquitted, the belief of guilt isn’t dissipated. After all, juries don’t return verdicts of “innocent,” but not guilty. And as the presumption of innocence is reduced to a “legal technicality” rather than a tenet of law, there is no way to overcome the taint.
But second, it may well work. For the reasons detained people plead guilty now, they will plead guilty to sex offenses rather than roll the dice at trial or spend a few years awaiting their chance for vindication.And third, if the rationalizations, the expert witnesses, the narrative, accomplish what their pushers hope, perhaps juries will convict despite the gross inadequacy of proof. Is it “unfair” that some accusations of sexual assault and rape are hard to prove? Perhaps, but that’s always been the nature of our criminal justice system, that it’s better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent be convicted. There was no exception for sex offenses. Until now.”
Conclusion
Sanctuary, the Kavanaugh confirmation, and the Trump impeachment have taught us intolerance. This story is another warning of what we are becoming. We are abandoning the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and due process. Why? Because we prefer outrage based action. This is a dangerous path. There is a four-county district in Mid Coast Maine where there is no due process, no assumption of innocence… vacationland?