Criminal Law & False Assumptions

[Brisco]

This is a post I wish I could add to the ORG discussion on 2013 HOF candidates.

In that thread, I have seen multiple mentions about the significance of Clemens acquittal on perjury charges and it brought back an old legal pet peeve of mine.

There are certain legal presumptions/rules that operate in our adversarial trial system, particularly in the area of criminal law. These include things like "innocent until proven guilty". This is a necessary part of our criminal process and I support it fully... but ONLY in the criminal process.

I think it would be very foolish for an individual to apply this presumption to everyday life. To use an extreme example, if my child was at a day care facility and another parent filed a complaint after finding a male worker sitting with his penis out next to their child... I would not wait for the criminal system to decide if this person was innocent or guilty. Yes, the whole thing could be a lie... but I would not risk keeping my child around that person. Further, if that person was acquitted because the numerous videos that were found of him molesting various children were excluded because they were collected illegally... i doubt any of you would say "Well then he's innocent so i am sending my kid back to him."

Roger Clemens was acquitted of perjury... this means that the government could not prove he lied under oath beyond a reasonable doubt. In this specific case, much of the evidence that we might find relevant was excluded based on rules of evidence. I do not mean to contest the finding, but to limit the implications to the criminal court. Like the child molestor on video above, just because the Court cannot (and should not) admit evidence that violates the rules does not mean that I need to ignore that evidence in my everyday life decisions.

Further, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is the highest standard under the law... as a result, an acquittal does NOT mean or imply that a person did not do a certain act, but only that the government cannot punish them. I thought the OJ simpson acquittal followed by his loss in the civil liability suit would clear this up for folks, but I still constantly hear folks argue that an acquittal means someone did not do something.

On the HOF, it is a privilege, not a right, to be inducted. Unlike criminal law, the burden is on the individual to prove they belong, not up to the Hall to prove they don't.

On the HOF question and PEDs, I think these are the questions that the Hall needs to ask itself:

1) What is the relevance of PED use on the file of a given player? If it is known, does it result in an absolute ban, such as gambling on baseball? Does it merely lessen the credibility of that player's accomplishments? or Does it have no affect at all?

2) What is the standard of proof you will use to determine if a given allegation should be considered when making a HOF selection? I think beyond a reasonable doubt is extreme. Lesser standards are clear and convincing evidence, the preponderance of evidence, probable cause or reasonable suspicion. I can see arguments justifying any one of these.

Personally, since you are selecting folks for additional adoration and hero-worship, I say err on the side of exclusion. If there is a credible allegation that player X did an act or acts that, if proven, would negatively affect their hall of fame admission, then that allegation should be considered as part of their file. Note that I am only arguing that the information should be considered by the voters... not that it should always determine the outcome of the vote.


Just my 2 cents.

Brisco

[Ironman92]

This is a post I wish I could add to the ORG discussion on 2013 HOF candidates.

In that thread, I have seen multiple mentions about the significance of Clemens acquittal on perjury charges and it brought back an old legal pet peeve of mine.

There are certain legal presumptions/rules that operate in our adversarial trial system, particularly in the area of criminal law. These include things like "innocent until proven guilty". This is a necessary part of our criminal process and I support it fully... but ONLY in the criminal process.

I think it would be very foolish for an individual to apply this presumption to everyday life. To use an extreme example, if my child was at a day care facility and another parent filed a complaint after finding a male worker sitting with his penis out next to their child... I would not wait for the criminal system to decide if this person was innocent or guilty. Yes, the whole thing could be a lie... but I would not risk keeping my child around that person. Further, if that person was acquitted because the numerous videos that were found of him molesting various children were excluded because they were collected illegally... i doubt any of you would say "Well then he's innocent so i am sending my kid back to him."

Roger Clemens was acquitted of perjury... this means that the government could not prove he lied under oath beyond a reasonable doubt. In this specific case, much of the evidence that we might find relevant was excluded based on rules of evidence. I do not mean to contest the finding, but to limit the implications to the criminal court. Like the child molestor on video above, just because the Court cannot (and should not) admit evidence that violates the rules does not mean that I need to ignore that evidence in my everyday life decisions.

Further, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is the highest standard under the law... as a result, an acquittal does NOT mean or imply that a person did not do a certain act, but only that the government cannot punish them. I thought the OJ simpson acquittal followed by his loss in the civil liability suit would clear this up for folks, but I still constantly hear folks argue that an acquittal means someone did not do something.

On the HOF, it is a privilege, not a right, to be inducted. Unlike criminal law, the burden is on the individual to prove they belong, not up to the Hall to prove they don't.

On the HOF question and PEDs, I think these are the questions that the Hall needs to ask itself:

1) What is the relevance of PED use on the file of a given player? If it is known, does it result in an absolute ban, such as gambling on baseball? Does it merely lessen the credibility of that player's accomplishments? or Does it have no affect at all?

2) What is the standard of proof you will use to determine if a given allegation should be considered when making a HOF selection? I think beyond a reasonable doubt is extreme. Lesser standards are clear and convincing evidence, the preponderance of evidence, probable cause or reasonable suspicion. I can see arguments justifying any one of these.

Personally, since you are selecting folks for additional adoration and hero-worship, I say err on the side of exclusion. If there is a credible allegation that player X did an act or acts that, if proven, would negatively affect their hall of fame admission, then that allegation should be considered as part of their file. Note that I am only arguing that the information should be considered by the voters... not that it should always determine the outcome of the vote.


Just my 2 cents.

Brisco

More like $20

I apologize for being too lazy to read it. Can't be mad at me....it's my birthday.

[Brisco]

More like $20

I apologize for being too lazy to read it. Can't be mad at me....it's my birthday.

First, Happy Birthday!

Second... no, still just 2 cents... just 'cause i am wordy and windy does not increase the value of the thought. ;)

[Ironman92]

First, Happy Birthday!

Second... no, still just 2 cents... just 'cause i am wordy and windy does not increase the value of the thought. ;)

Fair enough....I promise to read and comment.

[Ironman92]

Nothing like the surprise "penis" in a 5,000 word novel SMH.

[Ironman92]

(1) Lessens their accomplishments....but guys like Bonds and Arod still get my HOF vote but most all of the other HOF candidates (Clemens, Pettitte, Schilling...(completely convinced he was a user) Sosa, McGwire, Manny)....all HOF numbers, but all were either no where near HOFers and then all of a sudden they are the very best. IMO no one benefitted more than Clemens, Sosa and Manny. On the fence with Palmeiro but him being a user and then lying pushes him to the no.

(2) I'm tight on players' stats. There at so so many that I just guarantee used that never ever get linked....a top this list are Luis Gonzalez, Nomar Garciaparra, Eric Gagne, Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle, Curt Schilling. I have zero doubt on those 5....throw Bagwell in there.

Bonds didn't blow up until he had played 4 years AFTER his 3rd MVP....

McGwire and Clemens were great...then darn near out of baseball then they blow up and are amazing numerous years later. I don't think they were going to do enough to make the HOF.

If someone could prove Arod was juicing while on the Mariners he'd be on my no list.....but I don't think he started until around 2003.

[drowg14]

(1) Lessens their accomplishments....but guys like Bonds and Arod still get my HOF vote but most all of the other HOF candidates (Clemens, Pettitte, Schilling...(completely convinced he was a user) Sosa, McGwire, Manny)....all HOF numbers, but all were either no where near HOFers and then all of a sudden they are the very best. IMO no one benefitted more than Clemens, Sosa and Manny. On the fence with Palmeiro but him being a user and then lying pushes him to the no.

On Palmeiro, he wouldn't have my vote drugs or no. He was an accumulator. His peak wasn't all that strong.

I'll have to disagree with you on Clemens. If I'm not mistaken people don't think Clemens used till Toronto or NY. Yet he had several great years on Boston. Specifically 86-92.

[Ironman92]

On Palmeiro, he wouldn't have my vote drugs or no. He was an accumulator. His peak wasn't all that strong.

I'll have to disagree with you on Clemens. If I'm not mistaken people don't think Clemens used till Toronto or NY. Yet he had several great years on Boston. Specifically 86-92.

Clemens was terrible his last years in Boston and he just wins 4 more CY and his 90 MPH fastball in late Boston was 98 for Toronto the next year.

Clemens was awesome from 86-92, but Dwight Gooden was too.

Accumulators belong in the HOF. Craig Biggio will talk about it next year. If you accumulate certain numbers....you go to the HOF. Find me someone eligible with 3,000 hits, 600 doubles, 500 HR 1700 runs or RBI not in the HOF.....Biggio has 3 and does Palmeiro. I believe Palmeiro would've but up near HOF numbers without....but the sucky thing is we'll never know Bonds actual career stats....Palmeiro and such. I hate that aspect.

[BluegrassRedleg]

(1) Lessens their accomplishments....but guys like Bonds and Arod still get my HOF vote but most all of the other HOF candidates (Clemens, Pettitte, Schilling...(completely convinced he was a user) Sosa, McGwire, Manny)....all HOF numbers, but all were either no where near HOFers and then all of a sudden they are the very best. IMO no one benefitted more than Clemens, Sosa and Manny. On the fence with Palmeiro but him being a user and then lying pushes him to the no.

(2) I'm tight on players' stats. There at so so many that I just guarantee used that never ever get linked....a top this list are Luis Gonzalez, Nomar Garciaparra, Eric Gagne, Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle, Curt Schilling. I have zero doubt on those 5....throw Bagwell in there.

Bonds didn't blow up until he had played 4 years AFTER his 3rd MVP....

McGwire and Clemens were great...then darn near out of baseball then they blow up and are amazing numerous years later. I don't think they were going to do enough to make the HOF.

If someone could prove Arod was juicing while on the Mariners he'd be on my no list.....but I don't think he started until around 2003.

That's the biggest shame of it for me regarding Bonds. He was already one of the best players I've ever seen in 40-some years. He didn't have to go the PEDs route, but he couldn't stand watching Big Mac and Sosa get all the love for their 1998 HR barrage.

[Ironman92]

That's the biggest shame of it for me regarding Bonds. He was already one of the best players I've ever seen in 40-some years. He didn't have to go the PEDs route, but he couldn't stand watching Big Mac and Sosa get all the love for their 1998 HR barrage.

He couldn't stand it because he was the best and clean and these guys were dirty as can be and getting it all.

What he did on roids is not fathomable. Everyone was using pretty much and he was the best by a mile.

[brm7675]

Until you can prove 100% whom did and didn't use then that issue should have zero impact on HOF voting.

[Brisco]

Until you can prove 100% whom did and didn't use then that issue should have zero impact on HOF voting.

Wow. Even beyond a reasonable doubt is not enough for you... You require absolute certainty!

I doubt you require 100% certainty in most, if not all of the decisions you make on a daily basis... Why hold the HOF voters to a standard that none of us will ever follow, even in the most important decisions in our lives?

Think about if everyone applied even the lower "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to every day decisions. One thing is for sure... Most of us would never get hired.

[ervinsm84]

Agree completely on not needing to prove they used beyond a reasonable doubt. Id lean more to the "what is most likely" as far as burden of proof in this instance.

However, I definitely think someone like Bonds should be in the HOF for a few reasons.
Pre-Steroids, from 86-99 he accumulated 104.5 fWAR (didn't bother to check bref)
Yes, thats correct 104.5 over 14 seasons is ~7.5 a season for 14 straight years. That's auto HOF. There's a ton of other #'s I could pull out that would say the same thing, but Im just using WAR bc its quick, easy, and it's late at night and I'm not sorting through all his career #s.

While his #'s from 2000 on should be docked some %, (and what % is highly debateable) but even if we completely wiped them off the books and acted as if he retired after the 1999 season, he still had a HOF career. To me, that means put him in.

I haven't looked at Clemens career yet either, but he's probably the exact same way given how elite he was well before roids.

I don't believe that even admitted and explicitly using steroids after having a HOF career should exclude those players from the HOF. Similarly, I don't think Rose' actions later as a manager, should exclude him as a player from the HOF. Although, I think Rose' actions were much worse wrt to the game of baseball, compounded more so by the incessant lying, lack of remorse, his ego, and overall shadiness he's been involved with that inducting him to the HOF is something that should not occur til he has passed. He deserves to go into the HOF. He just doesn't deserve to get to celebrate and enjoy that day.

[Knightro28]

On the HOF, it is a privilege, not a right, to be inducted. Unlike criminal law, the burden is on the individual to prove they belong, not up to the Hall to prove they don't.

Bingo. Well put Brisco.