Devos is a worthless, privileged, out-of-touch dummy … with that out of the way.
I’d rather hear your thoughts on the dilemma caused by the concepts of burden of proof & innocent until proven guilty in regards to sexual assault. Typically, one can say innocent until proven guilty because the crime involves people AND things; a broken window, stolen goods, or even murder w a resulting corpse. The accused can be innocent until guilt is proven without the window, item, or corpse branded a liar. In the case of sexual assault, you (typically) have two parties stating opposite, contradictory facts. To hold with ‘innocent until proven guilty’ you must then assume the accuser untrue until proven true … which creates the very problem ‘innocent until proven guilty’ was trying to avoid.
I’m interested to hear thoughts on how this can fit our legal system and/or ideas on changes needed to accommodate this circumstance.