I am Curious

[olds]

100 years ago, when I was in high school, Civics was a required class. Part of what we learned about was the Constitution and our civic responsibility. Is a Civics class still required to graduate?

I am curious because it seems to me, "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer a factor in the United States. My question is, when did that change and why would a free society accept that change?

 

[fskimospy]

100 years ago, when I was in high school, Civics was a required class. Part of what we learned about was the Constitution and our civic responsibility. Is a Civics class still required to graduate?

I am curious because it seems to me, "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer a factor in the United States. My question is, when did that change and why would a free society accept that change?

It sounds like you are probably mistaken as to the standard of proof required to have the government incarcerate someone against their will and the standard of proof for the government to decline to give someone a lifetime position of enormous, unreviewable power.

Personally, I would suggest taking a few more civics classes as they would clear up that difference pretty easily.

 

[olds]

I am not saying or inferring that it's specific to today's events.

I understand it a legal doctrine but it's my opinion that people that understand the principle don't railroad others on a thought or accusation. This has been happening a lot as of late and in my opinion it is detrimental to what once was, a great nation.

 

[Jaskalas]

100 years ago, when I was in high school, Civics was a required class. Part of what we learned about was the Constitution and our civic responsibility. Is a Civics class still required to graduate?

I am curious because it seems to me, "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer a factor in the United States. My question is, when did that change and why would a free society accept that change?

So, there are two aspects to this.

• There's what the government may or may not do to you. Innocent until proven guilty.
• Then there's what the public may or may not do. Which is apparently a FFA, with anarchy as the guide.

Why we'd let the public harm others and ruin their lives... is something I'm trying to grasp.

 

[fskimospy]

I am not saying or inferring that it's specific to today's events.

I understand it a legal doctrine but it's my opinion that people that understand the principle don't railroad others on a thought or accusation. This has been happening a lot as of late and in my opinion it is detrimental to what once was, a great nation.

They simply judge the accusation and assess the relative probability of it being true. Imagine yourself as a hiring manager. Would you hire someone who you thought had a 50% chance of being a sex offender? A 33% chance? A 25% chance? I suspect none of these.

This is all very standard hiring practice and if anything it’s a higher degree of rigor as these people basically can’t be fired. It’s not detrimental, it’s common sense. We should at least apply a standard of rigor to the Supreme Court that we apply to someone at Starbucks.

 

[IJTSSG]

It sounds like you are probably mistaken as to the standard of proof required to have the government incarcerate someone against their will and the standard of proof for the government to decline to give someone a lifetime position of enormous, unreviewable power.

Personally, I would suggest taking a few more civics classes as they would clear up that difference pretty easily.

Olds you aren't confused at all. The left has decided that 'accused=guilty' no matter what the venue. What you witnessed over the last several weeks was their attempt to set aside and, in fact, ridicule as irrelevant, one of the core values this country was founded on --- the assumption of innocence. You're probably as disgusted by what you saw from the Senate minority as I was.

 

[IJTSSG]

They simply judge the accusation and assess the relative probability of it being true. Imagine yourself as a hiring manager. Would you hire someone who you thought had a 50% chance of being a sex offender? A 33% chance? A 25% chance? I suspect none of these.

You do realize that the way you obtain potentially adverse information in the hiring process dictates how you may use it and the process required to deny someone employment because of it?

Of course you do. You know everything.

 

[fskimospy]

Olds you aren't confused at all. The left has decided that 'accused=guilty' no matter what the venue. What you witnessed over the last several weeks was their attempt to set aside and, in fact, ridicule as irrelevant, one of the core values this country was founded on --- the assumption of innocence. You're probably as disgusted by what you saw from the Senate minority as I was.

It’s always nice to see this sense of entitlement. I’m sure you wouldn’t apply it to private business but for some reason you think it applies to lifetime, unreviewable jobs.

I have no doubt that if someone were applying to a job at some random business and then was credibly accused of attempted rape you would vehemently defend the right of the business not to hire them. It just shows how you clowns are tribal, not legal.

 

[fskimospy]

You do realize that the way you obtain potentially adverse information in the hiring process dictates how you may use it and the process required to deny someone employment because of it?

Of course you do. You know everything.

If someone comes to an employer with an allegation of sexual assault against a prospective employee there is no law anywhere that prevents that employer from denying them employment based on that.

This is not complicated stuff, how dumb are you?

 

[olds]

If someone comes to an employer with an allegation of sexual assault against a prospective employee there is no law anywhere that prevents that employer from denying them employment based on that.

This is not complicated stuff, how dumb are you?

One thing I do know, the person that resorts to insults instead of intellect has already lost the argument. That's because there is no reason to place any credence on what they have to say. You may have had a point, but you just gave away any credibility you may have had.

 

[IJTSSG]

It’s always nice to see this sense of entitlement. I’m sure you wouldn’t apply it to private business but for some reason you think it applies to lifetime, unreviewable jobs.

I have no doubt that if someone were applying to a job at some random business and then was credibly accused of attempted rape you would vehemently defend the right of the business not to hire them. It just shows how you clowns are tribal, not legal.

If someone comes to an employer with an allegation of sexual assault against a prospective employee there is no law anywhere that prevents that employer from denying them employment based on that.

This is not complicated stuff, how dumb are you?

You obviously can't read. Re read my post and point out where I say there are any laws that prevent a business from denying employment based on an accusation of sexual assault.
I used small words, how fucking stupid are you?

 

[fskimospy]

One thing I do know, the person that resorts to insults instead of intellect has already lost the argument. That's because there is no reason to place any credence on what they have to say. You may have had a point, but you just gave away any credibility you may have had.

That’s ironic considering the person I responded to is a blizzard of insults to everyone on this board, haha.

 

[olds]

That’s ironic considering the person I responded to is a blizzard of insults to everyone on this board, haha.

That may be, I don't post here much.

 

[fskimospy]

You obviously can't read. Re read my post and point out where I say there are any laws that prevent a business from denying employment based on an accusation of sexual assault.
I used small words, how fucking stupid are you?

Apparently your use of insults invalidates your point, haha.

As for the rest, if it wasn’t a legal standard then it is irrelevant. How someone chooses to view allegations is entirely their own business.

I know I wouldn’t hire someone under circumstances similar to Kavanaugh and I doubt many other people would either. Your mileage may vary.

 

[fskimospy]

That may be, I don't post here much.

He mostly responds to people who challenge his points on the facts with accusations that they are homosexual, weak, a woman, or a traitor.

Basically whatever person you are thinking of to personify your compliant, it’s him.

 

[senseamp]

100 years ago, when I was in high school, Civics was a required class. Part of what we learned about was the Constitution and our civic responsibility. Is a Civics class still required to graduate?
I am curious because it seems to me, "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer a factor in the United States. My question is, when did that change and why would a free society accept that change?

I took a civics class, but somehow I don't remember the standard for a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land being same as for not going to prison. I might have missed that day.

 

[ivwshane]

100 years ago, when I was in high school, Civics was a required class. Part of what we learned about was the Constitution and our civic responsibility. Is a Civics class still required to graduate?

I am curious because it seems to me, "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer a factor in the United States. My question is, when did that change and why would a free society accept that change?

Are you actually curious or is this your coming out post to show everyone that you yourself are ignorant of how our government works and when "innocent until until proven guilty" applies?

I'm genuinely curious seeing that this is a tech forum and you'd think that people who post here should be above average in their ability to use computers and the internet.

Anyway, here is your answer:
https://www.ecs.org/citizenship-education-policies/

Some key findings from the update include:

• Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia address civic education in state statute.
• Every state requires students to complete coursework in civics or social studies in order to graduate. The amount of coursework varies by state.
• Thirty-seven states require students to demonstrate proficiency through assessment in civics or social studies.
• Seventeen states include civic learning in their accountability frameworks.
• Every state includes civic learning or social studies in its standards or curriculum. Twenty states provide curriculum support and forty-eight states include civic learning as a strand in their standards.

 

[IJTSSG]

fskimospy - If you're curious look at something called the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Here's a short primer on how/what on background checks. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/background_checks_employers.cfm If you have a third party do background checks and you decide to deny employment because of the results, there are some hoops you are supposed to jump through. It's not as cut and dried as it would appear.

Let's assume for a second that I am the CSO at a Fortune 50 company and I am sitting with our HR attorney reviewing the BI on a candidate. The criminal background check came back clean as did the credit. However, for some reason, the investigators got a statement from a woman accusing him of attempted rape thirty five years ago. She named four potential witnesses. We talked to all of them and none of them could corroborate her story. Two major points to consider here: 1.There's no corroboration. 2. There's nothing amiss in the 30 + years since. I've never run across this specific scenario before but I can say with some certainty we would hire the candidate. If I did deny employment then I have to jump through the hoops in the above link. If I have my staff do the BI I don't.

 

[IJTSSG]

He mostly responds to people who challenge his points on the facts with accusations that they are homosexual, weak, a woman, or a traitor.

Basically whatever person you are thinking of to personify your compliant, it’s him.

You forgot bitch and I've never called anyone a traitor.

Good job!

 

[fskimospy]

You forgot bitch and I've never called anyone a traitor.

Good job!

Oh in that case my apologies, haha.

 

[Moonbeam]

Olds you aren't confused at all. The left has decided that 'accused=guilty' no matter what the venue. What you witnessed over the last several weeks was their attempt to set aside and, in fact, ridicule as irrelevant, one of the core values this country was founded on --- the assumption of innocence. You're probably as disgusted by what you saw from the Senate minority as I was.

God Damn that was good. You just accused and convicted liberals by the very tactics you ascribed without any real proof whatsoever. You have not the slightest idea how dangerous your blind bigotry and lack of self reflection you give witness to here really is do you. You have arrogated to yourself via profound lack of insight the role of judge jury and executioner. My bet is that you are so gone you won’t see it.

 

[fskimospy]

fskimospy - If you're curious look at something called the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Here's a short primer on how/what on background checks. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/background_checks_employers.cfm If you have a third party do background checks and you decide to deny employment because of the results, there are some hoops you are supposed to jump through. It's not as cut and dried as it would appear.

Let's assume for a second that I am the CSO at a Fortune 50 company and I am sitting with our HR attorney reviewing the BI on a candidate. The criminal background check came back clean as did the credit. However, for some reason, the investigators got a statement from a woman accusing him of attempted rape thirty five years ago. She named four potential witnesses. We talked to all of them and none of them could corroborate her story. Two major points to consider here: 1.There's no corroboration. 2. There's nothing amiss in the 30 + years since. I've never run across this specific scenario before but I can say with some certainty we would hire the candidate. If I did deny employment then I have to jump through the hoops in the above link. If I have my staff do the BI I don't.

You absolutely do not need additional corroborating evidence to deny someone employment based on a credible accusation of a sex crime.

 

[IJTSSG]

You absolutely do not need additional corroborating evidence to deny someone employment based on a credible accusation of a sex crime.

How credible is it if the witnesses named by the accuser can't corroborate the accusation?

 

[Moonbeam]

You forgot bitch and I've never called anyone a traitor.

Good job!

In a normal world I would say he is as far ahead of you with regard to conscious awareness and the capacity to think rationally as you are beyond the cockroach, but owing to our devolution into madness courtesy of the American conservative brain defect, that would no longer be true. You and a cockroach are these days far too close together.

 

[Moonbeam]

How credible is it if the witnesses named by the accuser can't corroborate the accusation?

What can be credibly corroborate is dependent on the capacity to judge what is credible and you lack that capacity. Because you have no capacity to understand the absurdity of your question or the validity of a correct answer your question is meaningless.