Experts Denounce 'Guilt Presuming Methods' of Handling Sexual Assault Allegations

"All sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by investigative findings."

One of the best things our founding fathers did was create a justice system with due process and which is based on a presumption of innocence. Now, professors and legal experts are asking universities to remember this rather than use "guilt presuming methods," Campus Reform reports.

In an open letter, they wrote:

“On college campuses, ‘believe the victim’ ideology is evidenced by the widespread use of ‘victim-centered’ investigations,” the letter states. “According to a Human Rights Watch report, a ‘victim-centered’ approach means the investigator assumes ‘all sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by investigative findings.’”

The letter continued:

“In sum, under the umbrella of ‘trauma-informed’ theories, victims’ advocates not only recommend disregarding complainants’ inconsistencies or behavioral anomalies; they also insist such inconsistencies should be viewed as probative evidence of trauma,”

“Illogically, this interpretation precludes any consideration of a complainant’s incongruous statements or inconsistent behavior as evidence,” it elaborates, saying that this results “in an irrefutable argument that the victim’s fragmented or lost memories are certain evidence of trauma, with the implication that therefore the allegations are true.”

It was signed by 137 professors and legal experts.

Issues