# Now, Al Franken **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 16, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770 "2017-11-16T15:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 465
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/465 "2017-11-17T16:50:40Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Yeah, I initially agreed with iiiandyiii but thinking it through logically, I can’t agree that he should resign. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime. But there should still be accountability. What does that accountability look like? This is the conundrum, isn’t it? I agree that proportionality is important, and that we ought to sanction people in a way that’s not out of proportion to their offense. The problem is, AFAICT it’s really all or nothing. The Senate could censure Franken, but that doesn’t really _mean_ anything. They could strip Franken of his committee assignments, but that is a punishment to the people of Minnesota that Franken represents, in addition to punishing Franken. I just don’t see a meaningful condition to “he stays in the Senate, on the condition that…” If someone can come up with one that makes sense, I’d like to hear it. But if the choices are “Franken resigns” or “Franken stays but sanctioned in a meaningless way” I’m still on the “resign” side. (BTW, Spice Weasel, I’m quoting your comment not so much because I disagree with you (even though I reach a different conclusion) but because I think you’ve nailed the dilemma. There needs to be accountability, and there needs to be proportionality. But is there a way of having both? And which do we choose if we can only have one?) --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770)._