How Would YOU "Prove the Negative?"

Can you prove the "negative of something?"

Place yourself in the following scenario:

Someone who is a minority at your work accuses you of using racial slurrs towards her. No one besides this person heard you say it. She is the only one who heard it. You are dragged before your boss who believes the allegation and is visibly irritated with you. You plead with your boss stating that you made no such remark. With his glasses at the end of his nose, he looks up at you from his desk and says, "Prove it."

How do you prove the negative of something? You can appeal to your spotless record for the past fifteen years, your charitable giving to minority non-profit organizations. You can bring people in that know you explicitly to testify to your character and yet, you still wouldn't have proof. Who's to say that in a moment of irritation in a room by yourself, you would never resort to one racial slurr, the first one in your life? All human beings are weak and fall; even the best of them. Here's what's stacked up against you: 1) You are assumed guilty; 2) You are human and therefore a potential racist; 3) You have failed to account for every second while alone with this person; 4) therefore you are guilty (notice the circle?). As a result, your boss suspends you from work without pay and requires you to take sensitivity training at your expense, which will be deducted from your paycheck. Is this fair and just? I'd think not.

Proving the negative shifts the burden of proof from the person making the charge to the one receiving it. It also creates circular reasoning which is no proof. In other words, it is impossible to "prove the negative."

In the criminal justice system, this fallacy is to be roundly condemned since the assumption of guilt is almost impossible to disprove; any allegation could be brought against the accused with certain condemnation. Also, just punishment is the exception only to be assessed against a positive act committed beyhond the shadow of a doubt. Third, proof is a demonstration of the existence of something; you cannot demonstrate something with nothing. It's totally absurd. The absence of evidence of something is nothing more than the absence of that something.

Subsequently, this method will never protect the innocent where the evidence is the word of the accuser and the accused. Justice is best insured when an assumption of innocence is first granted to the accused. If the accuser can logically demonstrate enough positive evidence of the criminal act, then whatever punishment is just. Punishing those who cannot "prove the negative" almost guarantees injustice. How many death penalty cases have been decided by this method?

In the court of public opinion, this unjust rule applies. Why? Because slick rhetoricians and their lackies try to sway public opinion by placing on politicians and public figures an impossible task of "proving the negative." Each one of you are the judge and you haven't the capacity to see through their tactics. Take the following examples:

1. Ted Kennedy stated that Robert Borke's America will revert back to the days of back-alley abortions and deaths to pregnant women who cannot get proper prenatal healthcare. This was the assumption by Kennedy; Robert Borke couldn't defend it. How do you prove the negative of something that hasn't occurred yet? Kennedy won in public opinion and Borke suffered a travesty of justice.

2. Senator Joe Biden tried to push Clarence Thomas during Supreme Court hearings to try to prove that he didn't put a pubic hair on Anita Hill's can of Coke or invite her to see "Long Dong Silver." Thomas of course couldn't produce the proof because he'd be in a position to "prove the negative of something," which is impossible. This didn't stop Biden, who "saw" Thomas' refusal to "prove the negative" as an obstruction. The one who truly had the burden of proof was Anita Hill, who could only give her word, which is no proof. Another travesty of justice.

3. Currently, this is happening in the court of public opinion with President Bush. When we got into Iraq, we found no WMD stockpiles. What did leftists assert? Bush lied. It's obvious, right? If not, the burden of proof rested on Bush to prove that he was not lying, which is impossible. There was NO evidence that he DID lie. With this slick sophistry, the American people were lead by the nose to believe this impossible expectation and the assumption of guilt prevailed, even to this day.

This is why I defend Bush. Not because he's "my hero." It's because a huge injustice occurs every day in the media and blogworld who continuously use this fallacy. However, this is not just a liberal tactic. Both sides of the aisle commit the same injustice. Remember the movement to nail Clinton on "these mysterious murders" or the "Mena Connection?" Nothing was accomplished (thank God!) for it assumed the guilt of Clinton, whereby he was left to prove the negative. This is wrong, no matter what political brand you bear.