It appears the argument is that was included for a good reason for criminal cases and shows a precedent for it. The argument isn't that civil cases are currently covered, but that they should be.

Under the 6th amd? That's a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what the constitution is, which is a document addressing the powers the gov't is entitled over its citizens, it has nothing to do with civil law. Civil law has had its own standards for as long as either of them have existed. Civil law always has a lower standard than criminal law does. Maybe a better avenue, rather than wielding your obtuse misunderstanding of civics, is to make an affirmative argument as to why civil law should adopt a similar standard to the 6th amd (despite never having done so since around the year ~1000).

No. The argument isn't that the 6th amendment applies. It's that the rationale made sense for criminal cases, and because it makes sense there, it should be included by others (say an HR department coming up with a policy on how to do something with anonymous reports).

> It’s that the rationale made sense for criminal cases, and because it makes sense there, it should be included by others (say an HR department coming up with a policy on how to do something with anonymous reports).

The rationale for the explicitly criminal protections in the legal system, whether in the Constitution (like the Confrontation Clause at issue here) or the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that reaches back to English common law, is that criminal convictions regularly and explicitly result in noncompensable loss of rights, sometimes including life.

HR is not imprisoning or imposing corporal or capital punishments, the same rationale does not apply.

But those aren't criminal proceedings, they don't have any of the requirements of a fair trial... are you saying that any time a private institution does anything that can have an adverse effect on an individual, they need to employ the standards of criminal law? have you even remotely considered what that would entail? or you are you just being smarmy online.

also, who would enforce it? say your company gives you a negative review because they don't like your work product - they now need to empanel a jury, and a judge? how is that going to work? if they don't, I'd imagine it'd have to be a criminal penalty because what would be the point if it was just civil? so now the gov't is forcing your company to have a trial over your review? give me a break, dude.

> so now the gov't is forcing your company to have a trial over your review?

No. But if the consequence of an anonymous report causes you to lose your job, and potentially be blacklisted from any other academic jobs in the future, it seems prudent that some process would exist to make sure things are fair. Otherwise it can be abused and weaponized by people in ways most people wouldn't want to see. I don't see anyone arguing the government should do anything here. It appears to be an argument that institutions instituting new policies like the one mentioned in the linked post should have some kind of process to prevent them from being abused.

>I don't see anyone arguing the government should do anything here.

Maybe work on your reading comprehension? People are literally saying that due process should apply... I had a dozens-long interaction with someone insisting that the constitution is a set of principles that apply to any human interactions... there's massive misunderstanding proliferated around here, so I don't agree at all.

> It appears to be an argument that institutions instituting new policies like the one mentioned in the linked post should have some kind of process to prevent them from being abused.

No shit - did you see anyone arguing that they should just be processes that are rife for abuse? The question is "what is the standard?"