No reasonable prosecutor would convict Brett Kavanaugh

The argument

The argument made here is about the standard of proof rather than about what did or did not happen, and it holds that the presumption of innocence should apply to Brett Kavanaugh as it would to anyone else. The starting point is the evidentiary position. He stands accused of sexual assault in an incident said to have occurred several decades ago, without hard evidence or witnesses to corroborate the account. In a case resting on the recollection of two people who describe events differently, there is no independent material for a court to weigh, and the allegations do not meet the standard required to convict in a court of law. That is a statement about what the legal test demands rather than about who is telling the truth. The judgment of a specialist is offered in support. Rachel Mitchell, the career sex-crimes prosecutor who questioned Blasey Ford at the Senate Judiciary hearing, concluded that no 'reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence'. Her assessment is presented as a professional evaluation of whether the material could sustain a prosecution rather than as a verdict on the underlying events. The argument then extends the principle beyond the courtroom. Proponents of this view hold that innocent until proven guilty must be the standard applied in all spheres, not only where a criminal penalty is at stake, because it is what protects the innocent from unfounded and slanderous claims. A standard that applies only inside court leaves reputations to be decided by whatever process fills the gap outside it. On that reasoning it is unfair to speculate about whether Kavanaugh did or did not do the things Blasey Ford accuses him of, and he should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Context

In most developed nations, the judicial system demands that those accused are innocent until proven guilty. As Kavanaugh stands accused of sexual assault, this must apply to him too.

Premises

Counter-arguments

But the hearings are not lawsuits. Just because the evidence is not sufficient to convict him in a legal setting, does not mean we cannot convict him in the social landscape, where the bar is set much lower. Does Kavanaugh deserve to go to prison based on the evidence? No. But does he deserve to have it reflect negatively on his character and potentially prevent him from serving on the highest court in the land? Absolutely. The innocent until proven guilty mantra does not apply to job interviews. If the allegations of Blasey Ford seem credible, then that should be sufficient to raise questions over his suitability to sit on the Supreme Court.< ref name=Quartz/>

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] He is not on trial and will not be found guilty or innocent. He is essentially at a job interview for a seat on the Supreme Court. The 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra doesn't apply to job interviews.