First of all, as David French correctly points out in National Review (and which I linked yesterday), Moore is not on trial to defend his rights to life, liberty and property, and is thus not entitled to what we call "due process". From NR:
Constitutional protections for due process apply when the state is attempting to deprive a person of "life, liberty, or property." That's why we have trials before we render civil or criminal judgments. That's why due process is mandatory before state-mandated punishment in campus sexual assault tribunals. As a general rule, when the state is attempting to deprive you of rights you'd otherwise enjoy, due process attaches. Here, there is no state action. Roy Moore will not lose his life, liberty, or property if voters reject his bid for high office.
To add to French's point, running for and serving in public office is a privilege, not a right. No one has to prove Moore guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal standard) or even to show a preponderance of evidence (the civil standard) that he did what his accuser claims, in order to say, "I'm not voting for this guy." For that matter, someone can decide to vote for Moore's rival Doug Jones (D) for reasons that have nothing to do with these recent allegations. The voting booth does not distinguish between "Moore assaulted a teenage girl" and "I only vote for Democrats."
Another thing to remember is that the politics of the accuser and accused are, or at least should be, irrelevant. If you're going to believe accusations against a Democrat, while dismissing those against Republicans, you're a hypocrite. On the other hand, if you always presume that a Republican is guilty, but also presume that any Democrat is innocent, you're a hypocrite that way, too. (In an earlier article, French warns us conservatives against dismissing the claims against Moore.)
The accuser is said to have "corroborating witnesses", but this term needs to be properly understood. The best kind of corroborating witness is someone who observed the misconduct that is alleged by an accuser, but this is not always the case. As pointed out by Neo-Neocon:
"Witnesses" doesn’t mean "people who saw the act itself." It can mean - and in this case does mean - "people who were told the story (or some elements of the story) by the accuser then or later." Usually it also means "and are willing to testify about it in court," not just to tell it to a newspaper reporter (and sometimes remain nameless). [emphasis in original]
This means that in deciding what to believe, we might want to distinguish between people who learn of the alleged offense first hand - by observing it - and people who learn about it from someone else. In this case, the witnesses appear to be of the latter variety. (Credit where due: I found the Neo-Neocon article linked at a post on Pirate's Cove.)
I think that most people will agree that accusations of sexual misconduct should be taken seriously. However, this does not mean that we must always unquestioningly believe the accuser. Nor do we automatically assume that the accuser is wrong. It means that we should evaluate the available facts and evidence as best as we can, and form our opinions from there, while realizing, hopefully with some humility, that reasonable people can differ.
Let me provide an example of what I mean by forming opinions from available facts and evidence, as seen in another story of alleged misconduct. During the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee (and current Justice) Clarence Thomas, a former co-worker of his named Anita Hill came forth with some allegations about workplace misconduct, specifically crude speech. If I remember one aspect of the story correctly, Hill claimed to have changed jobs to get away from Thomas, and some time later, he changed jobs to where she had gone, but their employment records showed that Thomas had changed jobs before Hill did. Thus, the evidence contradicted Hill's accusation, making her less credible. This inconsistency is part of the reason why I don't believe Anita Hill.
Some people will be skeptical about the accusations against Moore because his alleged misbehavior took place in 1979, almost 40 years ago. My response to this is to ask what they think of Juanita Broaddrick, who claims that she was raped by Bill Clinton in 1978. Because of statutes of limitations, neither Moore nor Clinton will ever go to jail, if indeed either or both deserve to. On the other hand, neither the seriousness of the alleged offense nor our right to decide for ourselves what we each believe about it diminishes with time. If there is anything about which I will be skeptical, it's not the age of the charge against Moore, but the fact that this story came out in the run-up to the general special election, and not when he was running against Luther Strange for the Republican nomination during the earlier primary. (I understand that the accuser did not come forth, but was sought out.) However, while the timing might seem a bit fishy, I would not call it a piece of evidence on par with the inconsistency that weighed against Anita Hill.
I must acknowledge that Juanita Broaddrick made her accusations public in 1999, so the time from the alleged rape would be only 21 years, as opposed to the 38 years between Moore's alleged assault and today. But in either case, the accused was a public official, whose position of power could understandably intimidate a woman into silence, even for an extended period of time.
The voters in Alabama will have to decide for themselves if the allegations against Moore, however old, are sufficient to disqualify him from office, or even if he is disqualified for some other reason. As a resident of a different state, to quote that noted political commentator John Mellencamp, "My opinion means nothing." But I can offer this much: If Moore gets elected Senator, these allegations are probably not going away.
As a side note, at least one Republican thinks that his party should offer a write-in candidate, such as the above-mentioned Luther Strange.
As another side note, I realize that some may object to this post getting a "sex offenders" label, since Moore hasn't been (and really can't be) convicted of anything. To this, I would point out that this blog is not a court, and therefore, like personal opinions and voting booths, is not required to operate according to any judicial standard. It is thus my prerogative to have this label include people who only might have committed such offenses. You know, people like Bill Clinton.
No comments:
Post a Comment