Throughout history a concept has existed that it is far more important to protect the innocent, here're some examples (note: from wikipedia)
Genesis 18:23-32
23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
William Blackstone in Commentaries on the Laws of England
All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.
Benjamin Franklin
it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer
John Adams (IMO, stated the best)
It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever
This is a concept that I think about every time one of these sexual assault cases is heard in the court of public opinion. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused in "he said she said" complaints with the lack of further corroboration. But, I fear that I am increasingly in the minority.
In a 2015 Washington Post survey, college students were asked
Which of the following do you think is MORE unfair: (An innocent person
getting kicked out of college after being accused of sexual assault) or (A
person who commits sexual assault getting away with it)?
42% of men and 56% of women responded that it was more unfair for the guilty to get away with it. I find that result to be staggering and I am not sure it is good for half of society to believe this. I have read this modern phenomenon compared to McCarthyism or the Salem Witch Trials, but I always think of this:
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Is that a Notre Dame helmet between them?
But, I trust that you do not think for a second that such a standard applies to a judicial nominee, anymore than hiring a football coach.
If you have irreconcilable doubts about a candidate, shouldn’t one err on the side of caution and vote against the nomination? Or demand an investigation to run out all ground balls?
If I had a vote I am not sure which way I would.