Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1701  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:34 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,130
Oh, you aren't a lawyer? Then what are you basing "The most severe sanctions would be criminal prosecution" on? If a kid is expelled from school for cheating, would you say "well, at least he wasn't criminally charged"? If you can't show how he could have been reasonably charged with a crime, it is a not part of the story.

And a lawsuit isn't a sanction, unless it's successful.

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-26-2019 at 10:37 AM.
  #1702  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:35 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
He was treated fairly, IMO. Being asked to resign after such circumstances is entirely "fair", IMO. Even if he only did what he said he did, and what he had a photo taken of, that's enough to resign, IMO. We can find senators who have not pretended to grope a sleeping woman ".
That's all good and well, but it doesn't answer my question. It seems that you don't think he deserved an ethics investigation and if so I'm just curious as to why not. I don't think it's a good precedent to set that if there are credible reasons that a senator or whomever may be innocent of accusations against him that they will simply be ignored.
  #1703  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:36 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm not so sure he didn't commit any crimes, but IANAL. Further, there are plenty of more severe sanctions than resigning - lawsuits being the most obvious. Now he has to live as a wealthy white man with a loving family. If he realized how good he had it, he'd be a happy man.
What you have is a goofy metric for determining the justice of a punishment. Say you are Bill Gates. Would losing 20 billion dollars over something like the Franken photo be something to be happy about even if you have 60 billion left?

In a way what you are saying is that a punishment meted to an individual be calibrated based upon the totality of life’s circumstances.
  #1704  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:38 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Oh, you aren't a lawyer? Then what are you basing "The most severe sanctions would be criminal prosecution" on? If a kid is expelled from school for cheating, would you say "well, at least he wasn't criminally charged"? If you can't show how he could have been reasonably charged with a crime, it is a not part of the story.

And a lawsuit isn't a sanction, unless it's successful.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. IANAL, so I'm not certain about that stuff. I'm just giving my opinion.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #1705  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:40 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
That's all good and well, but it doesn't answer my question. It seems that you don't think he deserved an ethics investigation and if so I'm just curious as to why not. I don't think it's a good precedent to set that if there are credible reasons that a senator or whomever may be innocent of accusations against him that they will simply be ignored.
Sure he deserved an investigation. He chose to resign instead (though that doesn't preclude an investigation, but he or someone else would have to pay for it). I'm glad he did - that was better for the party and the country, IMO.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #1706  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:41 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What you have is a goofy metric for determining the justice of a punishment. Say you are Bill Gates. Would losing 20 billion dollars over something like the Franken photo be something to be happy about even if you have 60 billion left?



In a way what you are saying is that a punishment meted to an individual be calibrated based upon the totality of life’s circumstances.
I hold senators to very high standards. I'd consider every situation on its own merits, and every person on the totality of their circumstances.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #1707  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:45 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. IANAL, so I'm not certain about that stuff. I'm just giving my opinion.
So we're sure here, is your opinion that he could have been prosecuted? Or is it that you have no idea but you still want to keep saying that criminal prosecution was the most severe sanction Franken could have faced?

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-26-2019 at 10:45 AM.
  #1708  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:49 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
So we're sure here, is your opinion that he could have been prosecuted? Or is it that you have no idea but you still want to keep saying that criminal prosecution was the most severe sanction Franken could have faced?
I don't know. I have an idea, but I don't know how informed it is - if I had to guess, I'd say that some of the instances described by his accusers might be misdemeanors.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #1709  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:04 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sure he deserved an investigation. He chose to resign instead (though that doesn't preclude an investigation, but he or someone else would have to pay for it). I'm glad he did - that was better for the party and the country, IMO.
Yes, but you said

Quote:
Being asked to resign after such circumstances is entirely "fair"...
Then since he deserved an investigation, was it not unfair of Schumer to tell Franken he wanted his resignation by 5 pm? Which, btw, is a bit different from Franken just choosing to resign. Just being completely honest here, it seems to me you don't really give a damn about Franken and what happened to him, you just want to put party above everything. This is just my impression of course, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But that seems, to put it mildly, a bit of a dangerous path to start down.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 07-26-2019 at 11:07 AM.
  #1710  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:06 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't know. I have an idea, but I don't know how informed it is - if I had to guess, I'd say that some of the instances described by his accusers might be misdemeanors.
Ok, so your best guess is that these might be misdemeanors that occurred 10-15 years ago. I know you're not a lawyer, but would you guess that a misdemeanor can be realistically or legally prosecuted after that amount of time?

Because that's what you're saying every time you say "The most severe sanctions would be criminal prosecution". You're saying that 10 year old (possible) misdemeanors can be prosecuted.

Last edited by CarnalK; 07-26-2019 at 11:07 AM.
  #1711  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:28 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Yes, but you said



Then since he deserved an investigation, was it not unfair of Schumer to tell Franken he wanted his resignation by 5 pm? Which, btw, is a bit different from Franken just choosing to resign. Just being completely honest here, it seems to me you don't really give a damn about Franken and what happened to him, you just want to put party above everything. This is just my impression of course, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But that seems, to put it mildly, a bit of a dangerous path to start down.
I certainly do put my country and my party above Franken's senate career. That's a trivially easy comparison. I put those things above any single person's political career.

And I think he was treated fairly. Being asked to resign is a fair response to strong evidence of inappropriate behavior, IMO.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #1712  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:29 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Ok, so your best guess is that these might be misdemeanors that occurred 10-15 years ago. I know you're not a lawyer, but would you guess that a misdemeanor can be realistically or legally prosecuted after that amount of time?

Because that's what you're saying every time you say "The most severe sanctions would be criminal prosecution". You're saying that 10 year old (possible) misdemeanors can be prosecuted.
I don't know, and this is not even close to central to my argument, so I'm happy to drop it.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #1713  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:48 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
One of the fundamental disagreements here is about our overall view of society, perhaps. I think we're in dire straits - we live in a society that generally excuses sexual assault and rape by powerful men, and generally treats victims and survivors like garbage. This is just barely starting to change.

I want abusers and rapists to be utterly terrified. I want them shitting their pants every single day. On this issue, I see us as a society in a continuous trauma emergency situation, and I intend to act with this in mind until the emergency is over (i.e. until victims and survivors are treated decently, and no powerful men are mostly immune to consequences for sexual assault and rape).

If I thought we lived in a remotely fair society, I'd probably act differently.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-26-2019 at 11:48 AM.
  #1714  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:53 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I certainly do put my country and my party above Franken's senate career. That's a trivially easy comparison. I put those things above any single person's political career.

And I think he was treated fairly. Being asked to resign is a fair response to strong evidence of inappropriate behavior, IMO.
Well of course, but I didn't mean putting country and party over one person's career. I mean getting rid of a senator without an investigation to determine if he could very well be innocent and the implications of that if it became the norm. Now, that won't happen overnight, but as I've said it's a dangerous precedent what Schumer did to Franken. I'm simply saying that it ought to be in the hands of the voters to decide who they want for their senator unless among other legitimate reasons that person has committed crimes or there is credible evidence of them. Of course, since you think everything was fair and there was sufficient evidence of something, then you see no issue here. Fair enough.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 07-26-2019 at 11:56 AM.
  #1715  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't know, and this is not even close to central to my argument, so I'm happy to drop it.
I know it's not central but you do seem to like to trot it out so you can pretend Franken got a fair deal. Just like him being allowed to keep his money and family. And pretend that the pressure he faced to resign wasn't much of a factor in his totally voluntary decision.

I did the Google for you. Misdemeanors in New York and California generally have a one year statute of limitations, Minnesota is three.

Another Google for you shows that no Senator has been expelled since the civil war, those Senators being ousted for supporting the rebellion.

So I don't just want you to drop it. What I think would be more honest is for you to acknowledge that Franken, by being forced out by his caucus, did indeed recieve the severest sanction possible.
  #1716  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I know it's not central but you do seem to like to trot it out so you can pretend Franken got a fair deal. Just like him being allowed to keep his money and family. And pretend that the pressure he faced to resign wasn't much of a factor in his totally voluntary decision.
I'm sure the pressure was a factor (and probably the primary factor), but that doesn't make it any less voluntary. "Voluntary" doesn't imply a lack of consequences -- I think he made the correct decision, for both the country/party and for himself. He just seems in denial right now, according to that article.

Quote:
I did the Google for you. Misdemeanors in New York and California generally have a one year statute of limitations, Minnesota is three.

Another Google for you shows that no Senator has been expelled since the civil war, those Senators being ousted for supporting the rebellion.

So I don't just want you to drop it. What I think would be more honest is for you to acknowledge that Franken, by being forced out by his caucus, did indeed recieve the severest sanction possible.
I don't believe he did receive "the severest sanction possible". A giant lawsuit that succeeded, or even one that failed but further embarrassed him, would have been more severe than mere resignation (which is not expulsion -- many, many senators have resigned). Being expelled would have been more severe than being pressured to resign, IMO.
  #1717  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:23 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Well of course, but I didn't mean putting country and party over one person's career. I mean getting rid of a senator without an investigation to determine if he could very well be innocent and the implications of that if it became the norm. Now, that won't happen overnight, but as I've said it's a dangerous precedent what Schumer did to Franken. I'm simply saying that it ought to be in the hands of the voters to decide who they want for their senator unless among other legitimate reasons that person has committed crimes or there is credible evidence of them. Of course, since you think everything was fair and there was sufficient evidence of something, then you see no issue here. Fair enough.
The picture is certainly evidence. If he wasn't a Senator, the picture would be evidence of a severe case of sexual harassment in the workplace. Furthermore, the Democratic Party is entirely within its rights to ask for a Senator's resignation for any reason. In this case, the optics of an ethics case would have been uncomfortable at best AND led by Republicans to boot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I know it's not central but you do seem to like to trot it out so you can pretend Franken got a fair deal.

[...] So I don't just want you to drop it. What I think would be more honest is for you to acknowledge that Franken, by being forced out by his caucus, did indeed recieve the severest sanction possible.
What is the statute of limitations on federal offenses? In any case, I agree with iiandyiiii. Franken left office, so there was no investigation. Who know what the investigation would have revealed? I don't think a statement that criminal penalties are more severe than resignation is out of line.

It is amazing to me that a group of you have managed to change this thread from a discussion of his unacceptable conduct, to a discussion of the consequences for HIM. Oh no, his life is ruined (it's not). Oh no, women are always believed over men (no, they're not - this case needed that damning picture). Congratulations gang. You have embodied in one thread virtually all of the stereotypical behavior that men are accused of following an accusation.

I'm sure Al Franken will be fine, just fine. He earned his current exile, and his comeback tour has started.
  #1718  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:27 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't think it backfired -- I think it directly contributed to both the victory of Doug Jones, and the increased scrutiny of Kavanaugh. But there's no way to know for certain ...
True no way to know for sure. Personally I highly doubt it had any impact on Doug Jones. And of more impact I think it fueled the backlash that led to Kavanaugh getting approved.

In any case from that political expediency perspective our bottom line is having lost a powerful brilliant liberal voice, and gotten Judge Kavanaugh. Maybe we would have won with Franken still around and no fuel to that backlash narrative. Maybe not. But we do have Kavanaugh.

In any case I suspect I am not the only one here with quality improvement experience. Zero tolerance for any mistake with severe punishments is not the approach that leads to systemic improvements. If sexual harassment is a problem you actually want to impact this is a counterproductive approach.
  #1719  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:31 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
What is the statute of limitations on federal offenses? In any case, I agree with iiandyiiii. Franken left office, so there was no investigation. Who know what the investigation would have revealed? I don't think a statement that criminal penalties are more severe than resignation is out of line.
I'm not surprised you think that because you are pretty unreasonable on this subject. You think pretending to grab someone's breasts is the same as actually grabbing. You and iiandyiiii are both creating pure fantasies about what could possibly have happened but it is rather straightforward that under the circumstances, Franken got punished as much as he possibly could have been.
  #1720  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:37 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Picking up from my last post, not directed at any one Doper:

Constrast Sen. Bob Menendez. Accused of corruption crimes. Trial happens. Unanimous decision could not be reached by jury. Justice Department drops all charges.

Now Franken. Accused of "bad behavior", but never of actual crimes. No trial even necessary. No ethics investigation. Effectively booted from Senate by minority leader.

Which seems more in keeping with our ideals? That whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Now, I would say that in that moment in time it probably was better for the party that Franken go. Especially given the Tweeden photo and some people's tendency to see something like that, make a snap decision and just go along with throwing Franken out on his ass. That is putting party above one person's career. But over time, this precedent could lead to what I've said earlier: our voting system being rendered moot. And yes, this would have to be the end result of a long series of unfortunate events. Given what Trump's being allowed to get away with these days, I fear that this process would be quite a bit shorter now than for something similar that may have happened before he was elected. In any case, that is putting party above country and is certainly, obviously, the wrong path to take.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 07-26-2019 at 12:38 PM.
  #1721  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:44 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
The picture is certainly evidence. If he wasn't a Senator, the picture would be evidence of a severe case of sexual harassment in the workplace. Furthermore, the Democratic Party is entirely within its rights to ask for a Senator's resignation for any reason. In this case, the optics of an ethics case would have been uncomfortable at best AND led by Republicans to boot.
I agree. It's evidence. So why not give him a chance to defend himself?!

And yes, it is within the rights of the party to ask a senator to resign. That doesn't mean it's okay to ask him for whatever damn reason they please. Would you not be pissed if the party asked your senator to leave for a reason you disagree with, given that you voted for him and don't think he did anything wrong? Does you vote mean no more than that, that the party can just willy-nilly throw someone out like that?
  #1722  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:53 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Now Franken. Accused of "bad behavior", but never of actual crimes. No trial even necessary. No ethics investigation. Effectively booted from Senate by minority leader.
Again, that was Franken's choice. Franken could have dug in his heels and insisted on an investigation and there would have been one. Nobody denied him that investigation, he just took a knee. Which it seems he regrets now, but oh well - we all make decisions we regret in retrospect.

I simply can't get worked up about that. If Schumer had moved to formally censure Franken and strip him of his office while denying him any formal investigation, that would have been an injustice. But just putting pressure on him? That's a fair play, because...

Quote:
Now, I would say that in that moment in time it probably was better for the party that Franken go.
Which is Schumer's job to prioritize. Franken screwed the pooch. Whether he is a handsy creep or just an oblivious space invader he ended up putting himself into a compromised position. Then freaked out by the accusations and his caucus starting to turn on him based on those bad optics, he bowed out. He needn't have, but he did - probably to his party's benefit.

So there may have been harm, but there was no foul there.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 07-26-2019 at 12:55 PM.
  #1723  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
Again, that was Franken's choice. Franken could have dug in his heels and insisted on an investigation and there would have been one. Nobody denied him that investigation, he just took a knee. Which it seems he regrets now, but oh well - we all make decisions we regret in retrospect.

I simply can't get worked up about that. If Schumer had moved to formally censure Franken and strip him of his office while denying him any formal investigation, that would have been an injustice. But just putting pressure on him? That's a fair play, because...



Which is Schumer's job to prioritize. Franken screwed the pooch. Whether he is a handsy creep or just an oblivious space invader he ended up putting himself into a compromised position. Then freaked out by the accusations and his caucus starting to turn on him based on those bad optics, he bowed out. He needn't have, but he did - probably to his party's benefit.

So there may have been harm, but there was no foul there.
So are you happy that someone who got away with corruption is still a Senator but the the guy who was handsy ten years ago is gone? That's where you want your party?
  #1724  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:25 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
But, again, let's say we have an investigation which is iiandyiiii's go to position. When it comes out that the woman says X happened and the man denies that X happened, what do we do then? If the answer is that we listen carefully and determine credibility, then what we are saying is that the best liar will win.

As I said, I am uncomfortable with sexual abusers getting away with crimes or bad behavior. I am more uncomfortable with a society that denies basic due process and a presumption of innocence. So what do we do?
  #1725  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:49 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
One of the fundamental disagreements here is about our overall view of society, perhaps. I think we're in dire straits - we live in a society that generally excuses sexual assault and rape by powerful men, and generally treats victims and survivors like garbage. This is just barely starting to change.

I want abusers and rapists to be utterly terrified. I want them shitting their pants every single day. On this issue, I see us as a society in a continuous trauma emergency situation, and I intend to act with this in mind until the emergency is over (i.e. until victims and survivors are treated decently, and no powerful men are mostly immune to consequences for sexual assault and rape).

If I thought we lived in a remotely fair society, I'd probably act differently.
Overreacting is reminiscent of the inquisition where at some point the punishment far exceeds the crime. You see this with social media and accusations of non-PC speech. At some point there is going to be a nasty backlash to the overreaction.

That said, there is nothing to be done because appeals to emotion seem to be far more profitable than proportionate responses.
  #1726  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:01 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Overreacting is reminiscent of the inquisition where at some point the punishment far exceeds the crime. You see this with social media and accusations of non-PC speech. At some point there is going to be a nasty backlash to the overreaction.

That said, there is nothing to be done because appeals to emotion seem to be far more profitable than proportionate responses.
I don't believe there have been any circumstances so far in which the "punishment" for a prominent abuser/harasser/rapist is worse than the crime.
  #1727  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:03 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But, again, let's say we have an investigation which is iiandyiiii's go to position. When it comes out that the woman says X happened and the man denies that X happened, what do we do then? If the answer is that we listen carefully and determine credibility, then what we are saying is that the best liar will win.
We're not even close to here yet. We don't yet actually treat accusations seriously and accusers with respect and decency, for the most part. When we get there, then we can worry about the possibility of a rash of false accusations. I'm not going to worry about that right now.

Quote:
As I said, I am uncomfortable with sexual abusers getting away with crimes or bad behavior. I am more uncomfortable with a society that denies basic due process and a presumption of innocence. So what do we do?
Treat accusations seriously, and treat accusers, victims, and survivors with decency and respect. We're not there yet, though.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-26-2019 at 02:03 PM.
  #1728  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:10 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,501
Punishing evil doers in the public space is a fine thing to do. There are times that justice requires accountability.

This goes far beyond Franken.

For most problems that occur endemically across systems though efforts to identify bad people to blame and to punish fails to improve circumstances overall. You want to fix the systems. You want good workers to learn what mistakes they are making and how to stop making them. You work to identify patterns that can be addressed.

Finding a few to blame and creating a culture in which fear is the operational principle, including fear of reporting not only for your sake but out of concern that the consequence for the one who did something wrong, may feel good to some. But it fails to improve the systems.

This is basic QI stuff. Not rocket science.

The she said he said for most of what occurs is more the opportunity to learn and improve for the individual and the system than it is a chance to punish.
  #1729  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:50 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We're not even close to here yet. We don't yet actually treat accusations seriously and accusers with respect and decency, for the most part. When we get there, then we can worry about the possibility of a rash of false accusations. I'm not going to worry about that right now.



Treat accusations seriously, and treat accusers, victims, and survivors with decency and respect. We're not there yet, though.
If we aren't there yet then why do I have three appellate cases for three guys doing the rest of their lives in prison over sexual assault allegations where there is no corroborating evidence?
  #1730  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:02 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If we aren't there yet then why do I have three appellate cases for three guys doing the rest of their lives in prison over sexual assault allegations where there is no corroborating evidence?
Are you suggesting that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is one that applies applied in every situation where there are possible repercussions at stake?

I think we all agree that it's a fine principle for culpability in criminal cases. I do not agree that it is a reasonable standard for dealing with employment of accused sexual harassers, suspected thieves, or people perceived as being dishonest. I very strongly disagree that it is the standard that should be applied to possible wrongdoing by those in a position of public trust.

ETA: And it sounds like a jury unanimously concluded that your clients were lying.

Last edited by Ravenman; 07-26-2019 at 04:03 PM.
  #1731  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:02 PM
Royal Nonesutch is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm not surprised you think that because you are pretty unreasonable on this subject.
And I'm not surprised to see your obvious and complete disregard for a women's disgust and dismay at being sexually humiliated while sleeping by Al Franken, given your insistance that your other hero, Louis "Peek-A-Boo" C.K., was unfairly maligned and in fact was the real victim in his "Me Too" saga, because the women he exposed himself to couldn't take a joke.
  #1732  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:20 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Are you suggesting that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is one that applies applied in every situation where there are possible repercussions at stake?

I think we all agree that it's a fine principle for culpability in criminal cases. I do not agree that it is a reasonable standard for dealing with employment of accused sexual harassers, suspected thieves, or people perceived as being dishonest. I very strongly disagree that it is the standard that should be applied to possible wrongdoing by those in a position of public trust.

ETA: And it sounds like a jury unanimously concluded that your clients were lying.
I'm not taking any position on the first part.

But if a jury determined that, didn't they believe the person who told the best story? Are people really a good lie detector? Or should we have hard evidence? That's my complaint about a "he said, she said" determination.

And keep in mind that we have groups that tell women that they were raped when they initially deny it: cops, prosecutors, domestic violence advocates, and counselors.
  #1733  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:31 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If we aren't there yet then why do I have three appellate cases for three guys doing the rest of their lives in prison over sexual assault allegations where there is no corroborating evidence?
Those guys are probably not wealthy or powerful. And such cases are relatively rare, in my understanding, compared to the frequency of sexual assault.
  #1734  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:52 PM
Scumpup is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Those guys are probably not wealthy or powerful. And such cases are relatively rare, in my understanding, compared to the frequency of sexual assault.
And so?
  #1735  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:03 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Those guys are probably not wealthy or powerful. And such cases are relatively rare, in my understanding, compared to the frequency of sexual assault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
And so?
Yeah, what does this mean? Rich people should be equally imprisoned by uncorroborated allegations?
  #1736  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:25 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yeah, what does this mean? Rich people should be equally imprisoned by uncorroborated allegations?
No, that rich people are largely immune to accusations of sexual assault or rape, except in unusual circumstances (all of which make the news). This is has finally started to change, but only very recently, and we still have a long way to go.
  #1737  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:37 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No, that rich people are largely immune to accusations of sexual assault or rape, except in unusual circumstances (all of which make the news). This is has finally started to change, but only very recently, and we still have a long way to go.
How are they immune? If I'm a young girl, I get all kinds of media attention if I say that Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Mitch McConnell, or Jeff Sessions raped me. How are rich people immune?
  #1738  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:39 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How are they immune? If I'm a young girl, I get all kinds of media attention if I say that Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Mitch McConnell, or Jeff Sessions raped me. How are rich people immune?
Very unlikely that any of them actually face justice. Trump has been accused, credibly, by multiple women, along with bragging about sexual assault, with no consequences.
  #1739  
Old 07-26-2019, 06:29 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
Again, that was Franken's choice.
Yes. But that's not point. On Nov 30 the Senate Ethics Committee announced a preliminary investigation into the allegations. Schumer did not ask Franken to resign at that time. He only did that on Dec 6, the day the final two allegations surfaced. Perhaps he saw those two as the final straws. Who knows. But he had a choice at that point. One was to take the easy (or admittedly, the politically astue) way out. The other was to tell Franken that it would not be fair for him to take any action at that point, that a full investigation should take place, and that he, Schumer would defend this idea this to the other Democratic caucus members. I think he unfairly sold Franken out.
  #1740  
Old 07-26-2019, 06:32 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not taking any position on the first part.
You have taken a position on the first part.

You said similar things about the Kavenaugh nomination. In a thread about Franken, you raised this issue of “innocent until proven guilty” as though it has something to do with what’s being discussed; so one can fairly conclude that you’re implying that the same standard should apply to Franken.

If you don’t think “innocent until proven guilty” should apply to Kavenaugh and Franken, just say so.
  #1741  
Old 07-26-2019, 09:53 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
What the fuck difference does it make if he's getting sexual pleasure from it? Why are you parsing this like there's some acceptable degree of taking a picture of an unconscious woman while grabbing her tits? There isn't, unless she consents.
Show me anywhere in my post where I defended what Franken did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Let's all take a good look at the photo, just to refresh our memories.

Is Franken invading her personal space? Certainly, and most definitely without her consent. Is Franken grabbing boobs? Looks to me like right hand is, left hand barely touching. Is he deriving sexual pleasure from it? I don't think so.

In 2006 Al Franken was a comedian with aspirations to political office. He often provided smart, witty commentary on current events, but he also was known for stupid, silly, juvenile humor.

Al Franken was playing a naughty boy. He's not the first comedian (or the first politician, for that matter) to cross the line between humor and poor taste, and to have his career blow up because of it. Nor will he be the last. Does the punishment fit the crime? That's not for me to say.
Sunny Daze, how about directing your outrage at people who actually say something outrageous.
  #1742  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:53 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You have taken a position on the first part.

You said similar things about the Kavenaugh nomination. In a thread about Franken, you raised this issue of “innocent until proven guilty” as though it has something to do with what’s being discussed; so one can fairly conclude that you’re implying that the same standard should apply to Franken.

If you don’t think “innocent until proven guilty” should apply to Kavenaugh and Franken, just say so.
Fair enough. I don't think there needs to be a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for a firing or a loss of an opportunity, but there still should be a presumption of innocence. Why should any accuser have a presumption in his or her favor?

And I further have a problem with convicting, firing, or otherwise taking action against someone based upon uncorroborated allegations. Why believe person X instead of person Y? I understand that means that some sexual assaults will go unpunished, but what is the alternative? Having a society where I can get you fired or put you in prison by finding a single person who can tell a story which does not defy the laws of physics and is therefore "credible"?

I think that is simply an astounding proposition in any country that values freedom.
  #1743  
Old 07-27-2019, 12:02 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
And I'm not surprised to see your obvious and complete disregard for a women's disgust and dismay at being sexually humiliated while sleeping by Al Franken, given your insistance that your other hero, Louis "Peek-A-Boo" C.K., was unfairly maligned and in fact was the real victim in his "Me Too" saga, because the women he exposed himself to couldn't take a joke.
Did I insist that? I don't remember that and think you might be mistaken.
  #1744  
Old 07-27-2019, 03:37 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
He was treated fairly, IMO. Being asked to resign after such circumstances is entirely "fair", IMO. Even if he only did what he said he did, and what he had a photo taken of, that's enough to resign, IMO. We can find senators who have not pretended to grope a sleeping woman on camera.

Strongly agree. And we did find one, by the name of Tina Smith. I think a lot of this discussion is a bit disrespectful to her.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don’t believe there have been any circumstances so far in which the “punishment" for a prominent abuser/harasser/rapist is worse than the crime.

Whoa, strongly disagree with you on that one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Those guys are probably not wealthy or powerful. And such cases are relatively rare, in my understanding, compared to the frequency of sexual assault.

Falsely reported rapes are much more common than false reporting of other violent crimes. One such false report ruined the life of my best friend.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Seriously dude. That is always a decision to be made by the voters. You want only people with no baggage, nothing that could be construed as baggage, who have made no mistakes, had no episodes of poor judgement, then vote for one of those people, assuming you can find them. IF he ever runs again (again, please not now) then it will be up to the voters in MN to decide if they think his baggage is disqualifying or not. Not you, not me, not even other Senators.

I would disagree somewhat with your premise regardless, but I am wondering why you are placing me in a different category than “the voters in MN”. Maybe you missed the first post I made in this thread?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I played a small role in Franken’s ouster. On the senate.gov website where they verify you are a Minnesota resident (or at least that your computer or phone is located within the state’s boundaries) before being allowed to send feedback, I told him I was a longtime supporter but that he should resign.

In case that’s not crystal clear, I am a Minnesota voter. Furthermore, in fact, I am a “DFLer”, and I contacted officials of the state party—who know me as a dedicated door knocker—to express the same opinion and ask that they pass it up the line. Maybe it was a drop in the bucket, but I at least attempted to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

So even if you don’t think it’s up to other people in this thread (maybe), or up to his fellow Democratic senators (hard disagree with you about that), you have to admit that it is at least in some small part up to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
And I’m not surprised to see your obvious and complete disregard for a women’s disgust and dismay at being sexually humiliated while sleeping by Al Franken, given your insistance that your other hero, Louis "Peek-A-Boo" C.K., was unfairly maligned and in fact was the real victim in his "Me Too" saga, because the women he exposed himself to couldn't take a joke.

I agree that Louis CK got a raw deal. Am I the only one who sees that this is totally different? If Al Franken were canceled from doing comedy anymore, I would be defending him right along with others. The US Senate is just so dramatically different from the comedy world. But if you want to move from the latter to the former, you have to be judged by the standards of the former, not the latter. There are very few comics I can think of who would be suitable for the US Senate.
  #1745  
Old 07-27-2019, 10:15 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't believe there have been any circumstances so far in which the "punishment" for a prominent abuser/harasser/rapist is worse than the crime.
You make statements along these lines quite frequently, such as the idea that possible victims of sexual abuse are most always treated poorly and that the alleged/convicted abusers are usually let off easy. Would you say that is accurate? If so, on what do you base this? Thanks.
  #1746  
Old 07-27-2019, 10:46 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You make statements along these lines quite frequently, such as the idea that possible victims of sexual abuse are most always treated poorly and that the alleged/convicted abusers are usually let off easy. Would you say that is accurate? If so, on what do you base this? Thanks.
Yes -- based on my understanding of the statistics of sexual assault and rape, and based on discussions and the words of victims and survivors.
  #1747  
Old 07-27-2019, 01:18 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
.. I would disagree somewhat with your premise regardless, but I am wondering why you are placing me in a different category than “the voters in MN”. Maybe you missed the first post I made in this thread?





In case that’s not crystal clear, I am a Minnesota voter. Furthermore, in fact, I am a “DFLer”, and I contacted officials of the state party—who know me as a dedicated door knocker—to express the same opinion and ask that they pass it up the line. Maybe it was a drop in the bucket, but I at least attempted to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

So even if you don’t think it’s up to other people in this thread (maybe), or up to his fellow Democratic senators (hard disagree with you about that), you have to admit that it is at least in some small part up to me ...
Oh you voted him out of office? This was a voters’ choice? In lieu of losing an election there were mass protests of Minnesotans demanding he leave? Even a large majority of voters wanting him to resign in their Minnesotan quiet way?

No.

There was no majority of voters wanting him to resign. In fact more thought his resignation was a bad choice than supported it. http://m.startribune.com/majority-of...uit/469451383/ This was a decision made by others than those who elected him for ... reasons.
  #1748  
Old 07-27-2019, 03:33 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,235
Whatever. You were clearly telling me I’m not a MN voter, when I am.
  #1749  
Old 07-27-2019, 03:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,130
He probably doesn't give a shit whether you're a Minnesota voter. His point was that Franken wasn't voted out and polls showed that the majority wanted him to stay.
  #1750  
Old 07-27-2019, 04:22 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,235
I can’t read the article as I am past my monthly limit, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Republicans wanted him to stay and act as a millstone around DFLers’ necks (or just don’t want to lay down the precedent that this kind of thing should be punished). I would be more impressed by a strong show of support from the DFL.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-27-2019 at 04:24 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017