# Creepy sexual harasser on a US government salary **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 7, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228 "2009-04-07T04:53:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/61 "2009-04-08T06:00:06Z")
> [@Lizard](#): > > That’s because in the British legal system (on which New Zealand’s is based) there is no overt presumption of innocence, as there is in the U.S. It’s that way for all crimes, not just sexual assault. Really? I find that hard to believe and would like to see some supporting evidence. > [@](#): > > Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception… > > - > - > - [John Sankey, 1st Viscount Sankey - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Sankey) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/62 "2009-04-08T06:32:23Z")
Another quote > [@](#): > > [Common Sense Americanism - The Foundations](http://www.csamerican.com/fdns.asp) > > Presumption of Innocence > > The doctrine of Presumption of Innocence, supposedly at the very heart of the American system of justice, is not found in the Constitution. Which is kind of a shame, because it is another important foundation of our cultural and legal identity that is being steadily eroded, in the interest of governmental convenience. > > **The concept of the presumption of innocence had its roots in the Common Law, long established in Britain and thence in America.** Besides being a part of the environment of justice in which our Founders lived, the concept is central to the ideas of Freedom and Due Process of Law. In addition, the common sense of any reasonably enlightened people must dictate that a person accused is innocent until proven guilty, just as much as they would believe that the other rights of defendants must be reasonably protected. Those protections for the accused were incorporated by the Founders into the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Articles of the Bill of Rights, and could not have been of any import had there not first been a presumption of innocence. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/63 "2009-04-08T06:39:30Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Really? I find that hard to believe and would like to see some supporting evidence. ok…this snippet "Clearly, one’s perception of balance is affected by where one stands, but the perspective now appears to be weighted almost exclusively in favor of the (female) rape complainant against the (male) defendant. The pendulum has swung to one extreme. Whilst broadening the net might allow for more genuine offenders to be caught by the system, it has also resulted in an unacceptable number of innocent people being trapped in the process. Rape allegations should always be taken seriously. All complainants should be treated with sensitivity, compassion, and respect. All those accused should be treated in the same manner. The police should be skeptical: they should neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant but ask, “What is the evidence?” and conduct an impartial investigation." From [this](http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume8/j8_2_4.htm)article The presumption of innocence in the courts wasn’t changed - what was changed was that investigators operated under the assumption that the complainant was telling the truth - which (the article claims) skewed the investigation from one of a neutral position and trying to ascertain the truth to one of trying to find the accused guilty… still looking for cites - but the above gels pretty well with my memory ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/64 "2009-04-08T07:28:39Z")
One more: > [@](#): > > [http://en.allexperts.com/q/Criminal-Law-916/presumption-innocence-1.htm](http://en.allexperts.com/q/Criminal-Law-916/presumption-innocence-1.htm) > > The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/65 "2009-04-08T07:36:51Z")
**bengangmo** , I do not see how what you posted in any way supports this assertion: > [@Lizard](#): > > That’s because in the British legal system (on which New Zealand’s is based) there is no overt presumption of innocence, as there is in the U.S. It’s that way for all crimes, not just sexual assault. Let us see some cites that say that **“in the British legal system there is no overt presumption of innocence, as there is in the U.S.”**. I believe the presumption of innocence in criminal trials is so old in the Common Law that the origins are lost in time. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/66 "2009-04-08T07:36:56Z")
**Sailor** check out the cite I provided, the laws weren’t changed, what was changed was the investigative procedures such that the “presumption of innocence” was impacted. I overspoke a little (but please cut me some slack - it was over 10 years ago I read this). It still basically remains the same though - in cases of non stranger rape, if the police assume that the accuser is telling the truth, the accused starts the whole process behind the 8 ball. At the same time, the procedures in the courts WERE changed - not on the presumption of innocence, but in the instructions the judge gave to the jury. In rape cases, the jury was no longer **warned** about the dangers of accepting testimony from the accuser absent corroborating evidence (which is standard in other trials) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/67 "2009-04-08T07:53:08Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > **Sailor** check out the cite I provided, the laws weren’t changed, what was changed was the investigative procedures such that the “presumption of innocence” was impacted. > > I overspoke a little (but please cut me some slack - it was over 10 years ago I read this). > > It still basically remains the same though - in cases of non stranger rape, if the police assume that the accuser is telling the truth, the accused starts the whole process behind the 8 ball. At the same time, the procedures in the courts WERE changed - not on the presumption of innocence, but in the instructions the judge gave to the jury. > > In rape cases, the jury was no longer **warned** about the dangers of accepting testimony from the accuser absent corroborating evidence (which is standard in other trials) It still does not support in any way the assertion that \*\* “in the British legal system there is no overt presumption of innocence, as there is in the U.S.”.\*\* That is the statement I am taking issue with. The presumption of innocence is part of the Common Law and goes back so far and is so entrenched that they did not see the need to include it in the American Constitution where it is not directly mentioned, only assumed and presumed. One more cite: > [@](#): > > The presumption of innocence arose in part from the fear of judicial murder of the innocent in a period when almost all crimes were capital. The prosecution must therefore prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. > > The English Legal System, by A.K.R. Kiralfy, Published by Sweet & Maxwell, First Ed. 1954 ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/68 "2009-04-08T08:36:23Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > It still does not support in any way the assertion that \*\* “in the British legal system there is no overt presumption of innocence, as there is in the U.S.”.\*\* That is the statement I am taking issue with. > > The presumption of innocence is part of the Common Law and goes back so far and is so entrenched that they did not see the need to include it in the American Constitution where it is not directly mentioned, only assumed and presumed. > > One more cite: er - I never said that - you are parsing my comments uhm… strangely to say the least. this is what I said would need to go back and search, and see if I can find cites and all, but I do remember reading / hearing (10 - 12 years ago) that in cases of sexual assault / rape when they came to court the base position to take was that the woman was telling the truthm, and should be believed absent corroborating evidence - in essence at the time the rapist was basically expected to prove his innocence. (this was in New Zealand).. I was wrong in my use of “court” I should have used police / investigators …however the rest of the statement stands - perhaps you want to take any other issues up with **Lizard**? ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/69 "2009-04-08T09:11:29Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > It still does not support in any way the assertion that \*\* “in the British legal system there is no overt presumption of innocence, as there is in the U.S.”.\*\* That is the statement I am taking issue with. > > The presumption of innocence is part of the Common Law and goes back so far and is so entrenched that they did not see the need to include it in the American Constitution where it is not directly mentioned, only assumed and presumed. A tad obsessed with this point, aren’t ya? Okay, maybe I didn’t know what I was talking about. If so, you may [file a complaint](http://apps.co.marion.or.us/imagegallery/Recycling%20Images/photogallery/garbage%20can_RGB.jpg), and [my staff](http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6080260/i/monkeys-cut.jpg) will consider it. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/70 "2009-04-08T09:43:57Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I was wrong in my use of “court” I should have used police / investigators …however the rest of the statement stands Well that’s like saying “Germany was the first country to use an atomic bomb” and then saying “I was wrong in my use of 'Germany, I should have said ‘America’.. however the rest of the statement stands”. Or saying “He DID rape her” and then saying “I should have said DID NOT instead of DID, however the rest of the statement stands”. > [@bengangmo](#): > > - perhaps you want to take any other issues up with **Lizard**? I have no “issues” with him or with you. My issue was with the statement that **“in the British legal system there is no overt presumption of innocence, as there is in the U.S.”** and you stepped in. My only “issue” is to say that everything I know indicates that statement is not true. That is my only issue. For now I think my belief has not been proved wrong. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/71 "2009-04-08T09:51:52Z")
> [@Lizard](#): > > A tad obsessed with this point, aren’t ya? Not any more than yourself. > [@Lizard](#): > > Okay, maybe I didn’t know what I was talking about. That seems to be the case. An adult person who feels secure would just admit his mistake and move on but you seem to feel insecure and cannot admit it without trying to somehow put blame on the other side. I have found that insecure men like that are the ones who will grope and brush up against women and then say “who? me? Don’t be ridiculous, you are just obsessed with sex”. Are you sure you do not work for a large American government agency? Just asking. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/72 "2009-04-08T11:40:22Z")
> [@Lizard](#): > > That’s because in the British legal system (on which New Zealand’s is based) there is no overt presumption of innocence, as there is in the U.S. It’s that way for all crimes, not just sexual assault. Wrong. So very wrong that it beggars belief. Your willingness to assert your ignorance is impressive. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/73 "2009-04-08T13:16:27Z")
> [@The\_Devil\_s\_Grandmother](#): > > I’ve warned and been warned by other women (usually in social situations, not at work) to never be alone with Mr. So-and-So, or to not take Mr. Nameless’s flirting personally. I’ve warned and been warned by coworkers when (for example) an incompetent middle manager is the boss’s brother and will never get fired. > Do men never talk about women? The whole locker-room talk is a myth? Well of course you talk about odd things that go on in the office. Except that this is sexual harrasment and there IS something that can be done about it. I think I understand the young women in the OP not wanting to make a fuss but I don’t understand how it can go on and on, so many young women and they all know and talk about it, and nobody tells anyone official? I found this out because I just happened to be in the right place a the right time. The women played it off as “just one of those things”. If the guy was under me there would be an investigation going on but they didn’t want to make trouble. I can tell you, guys don’t like the creep either. And yes, the whole locker-room talk thing is a myth. I guess women talk about men in the locker-room a lot(?) so they assume men do even more? This is mostly false. Over the course of many (many) years I have heard only a few losers talk about their conquests in a locker-room. They were obvious losers and bragging about things that everyone knew were lies didn’t help. Although, looking back, who knows? Maybe they were getting away with the impossible because women don’t complain. Guys don’t stand around in locker-rooms talking about women in detail - only in general “man, did you see the women in the tights, she’s hot” type terms. And we don’t do a lot of that because you never know if her boyfriend is standing on the other side of the locker. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/74 "2009-04-08T14:53:54Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But you are assuming that he is guilty and she is telling the truth. I don;t make that assumption. Perhaps she hates himand wants to spread nasty rumors about him in retaliation. And you are assuming that she’s lying and say that her behavior “disgusts” you. With that comment alone, you have lost all credibility here. This woman may be misconstruing something, she may be lying, but IME she most likely is not. Obviously, YM varies, to the point where you immediately dismiss the possibility that what she relayed is the truth. And then you wonder why women don’t speak up. Classic. > [@](#): > > Yes, and certainly she could do that without spreading rumors about a specific guy. She coudl talk to another female co-worker, or a Union rep (yes, the Feds have Unions), couch it in hypotheticals and ask for advice. Well, she did bounce it off a coworker–true, not as a hypothetical. Women tend to not deal in hypotheticals. You don’t know if **Johanna** or this woman is now going to spread this around the office. My guess is no. Since this “gentleman” is just starting out in this department, time will tell if he is the masher this woman experienced. So, you had ONE bad experience and feel like you got burned. Sounds to me like a misunderstanding. Given the obstacles to communication, that’s almost to be expected. Did the deaf woman perhaps overreact? Yes. But she’s one woman. You won’t believe this, but when it comes to the professional workplace, speaking up is so rare that being set up as a fall guy because some woman has taken a dislike to you is almost laughably improbable. I won’t say it doesn’t happen, but usually these cases are some creep who gets his jollies by molesting women in this manner and the woman just avoids him and the cycle perpetuates endlessly. **shiftless** –I agree with you re the locker room. Supposedly there are scads of women out there who compare notes on their man’s member and performance etc. I have yet to have a face to face convo with anyone like that. I think it’s all a myth. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/75 "2009-04-08T15:19:51Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I am a guy, I consider it quite normal to compliment my female colleagues on a new dress, their perfume or a new haircut. The comment may well be “you look really good in that dress” or something similiar, at times a little flirty (it is well known in the office that I am very happily married) - if the lady feels at all uncomfortable I would of course stop - but I am genuinely making a nice compliment and trying to make her feel good. Should I be persecuted in this sort of situation? But maybe it’s on you to not act like that to begin with, and not put her in the position to have to confront it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/76 "2009-04-08T15:45:47Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > And you are assuming that she’s lying and say that her behavior “disgusts” you. No, I do _not_ assume she’s lying. If she is telling the truth, then she has a duty to report his behavior, not just spread rumors. It is best if she asks him to stop first, but I accept that this may be awkward, then a simple factual reporting is fine. I talked to my Bro, who was the Lead Instructor for the IRS for a period. He said that the IRS (and other Federal agencies) take this sort of thing very seriously, and they really, really want it reported while a new employee is still probationary. During his time, two probies were asked to leave because of complaints like this. By not speaking up, you subject other women to this sort of behavior and make it much harder to get rid of a perpetrator. You need to speak up- or shut up. No rumor spreading. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/77 "2009-04-08T15:47:30Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > And yes, the whole locker-room talk thing is a myth. I guess women talk about men in the locker-room a lot(?) so they assume men do even more? This is mostly false. Over the course of many (many) years I have heard only a few losers talk about their conquests in a locker-room. They were obvious losers and bragging about things that everyone knew were lies didn’t help. Although, looking back, who knows? Maybe they were getting away with the impossible because women don’t complain. Guys don’t stand around in locker-rooms talking about women in detail - only in general “man, did you see the women in the tights, she’s hot” type terms. And we don’t do a lot of that because you never know if her boyfriend is standing on the other side of the locker. Right. Really, guys don’t “chat” in the locker room, especially about this sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/78 "2009-04-08T15:56:04Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > Guys don’t stand around in locker-rooms talking about women in detail - only in general “man, did you see the women in the tights, she’s hot” type terms. And we don’t do a lot of that because you never know if her boyfriend is standing on the other side of the locker. Two Scots meet at a party. As they are talking one sees a stunning blonde and says to the other “Look at that chick, I would love to fuck her!” The other one, very offended says “Sir! That is my wife you are looking at!” To which the first one responds “No offense meant, of course I am willing to pay!”. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/79 "2009-04-08T16:38:30Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Women tend to not deal in hypotheticals. Then why are women always asking their husbands whether they’d remarry if they (wives) died, eh? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228/80 "2009-04-08T16:43:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Then why are women always asking their husbands whether they’d remarry if they (wives) died, eh? :dubious: Not a hypothetical, it’s a trap, just like “would I make a good call girl” or “do these jeans make me look fat”.😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creepy-sexual-harasser-on-a-us-government-salary/492228.md?page=5)