If someone wants to allege that a candidate for office – or a sitting Senator, or pretty much anybody else – has committed a crime or whatever, take that to the courtroom. File a police report. Sue them for civil damages. Heck, do that to me, if you genuinely think I’ve done something I should see a lawyer about.
That’s still the idea, right? If folks want to allege that I’ve sexually assaulted them – or just plain-vanilla assaulted them; or kidnapped them, or burned down their house while cackling like a madman – then isn’t that a matter for the courtroom, whether I’m just running for City Council or I’m already on the City Council or I’m some guy who can’t actually name anyone on the City Council?
Sure, but for instance, the people making the accusations against Roy Moore, that all happened 40 years ago. There’s a statute of limitations, so they can’t press charges against him or sue him. Too much time has passed.
Mitt Romney recently said “Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections.” I think it would be ok to hold our elected officials to a higher standard than our courtroom minimum.
Ultimately, has to be elections, because so much of this is opinion and concern. You don’t give a rat’s that the candidate gropes, then no prob. If its a prob, and you think they do, then you vote against them. But proving this shit to legal standards of guilt is well nigh impossible.
Of course. It’s there to protect those who view it as their birthright to make use of 14-year-olds as they see fit.
If the kids are too intimidated (for example), by having been told ‘I’m a D.A. and you’re a child and no one will believe you’—if they are duly intimidated from coming forward until years pass, and a new national wave of exposures of abuse finally gives them the courage to speak–well, then: so much the better.
So if someone confessed to molesting a 14-year old long enough in the past that its past legal remedies, you’d feel honor bound not to take that into account in deciding who to vote for?
I got into this thread because someone posted the following:
…and, well, that struck me as jarring; near as I can tell, elections don’t “replace the courtroom to determine guilt”; rather, the courtroom remains exactly as suited to that task as it ever was. “This is a good column” is, thus, not how I’d describe it.
1: Existing statues of limitations have, historically, worked to the advantage of people who do what Moore is accused of doing: abusing and assaulting kids who will be easily intimidated from reporting the abuse when it happens. (We’ve seen this with accusations against priests, too.) So, I’m suggesting, law-making bodies in general might usefully re-evaluate statutes of limitations for sexual offences.
2: The women who accuse Moore are unlikely to be able to benefit from any changes in statutes, as such changes, often, are not retroactive. But that wouldn’t stop voters of conscience from making use of all the information that’s been presented about Moore when deciding how to vote.
Usuakly, when it comes to things like statutory rape and such, the statute of limitations doesn’t start tolling until the minor comes of age. In some states, I don’t think it does at all.
But you’re right that the statute of limitations is to protect the accused. Also, cases tend to get weaker over time.
Best for victims: a culture in which even a 30ish assaulter saying ‘I’m a D.A., no one will believe you’ can’t count on his victim being intimidated, because the support for victims (to be heard and taken seriously) is so strong.
The standard should be ‘be heard seriously; all credible allegations will be investigated.’ The standard should NOT be ‘an accusation = a conviction.’ If we can steer clear of that ethical (and political) trap, then reform of statues of limitations would be more likely.
(Of course as we’ve been saying here, ‘conviction’ isn’t relevant in the case of Moore.)
Court of law. Okay, there are a couple of standards here, whether it’s civil or criminal. Nevertheless, within a court of law, election results are entirely immaterial to determining guilt for unrelated crimes; there are set procedures, rules, and precedents that must be followed.
Political. Okay, there are like five bajillion standards here. Nevertheless, within politics, the statute of limitations, court precedents, and other legal guidelines are not relevant.
Someone may be convicted in a court and placed in office in an election, or exonerated in a court and kicked out in an election, or exonerated in both or found guilty in both. They don’t have a whole lot to do with one another.
And Sarah Huckabee Sanders lies like a dog, so any equivocation she engages in should receive the rolling eyeballs it deserves.
Yeah and furthermore voters should work off a preponderance of the evidence standard and not, “Proof beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Argument not made yet: private business is private business. What matters is official conduct in office. Traffic tickets, adultery, and cold blooded murder are private business. We let the courts handle that. What matters is the voting record and what the representative pushes for in Congress. (Self parody intentional.)
There’s an intersection of course. Those conducting fraudulent activity in business are more apt to take bribes or break laws regarding foreign powers while in office. Also if somebody hypothetically ass-grabs during an official event, that has to be weighed insofar as their public duties are concerned.
I’m not electing a saint, I’m electing someone to do the people’s business.
Have at it gang, but this isn’t a hill I’m going to die on. Devil’s advocacy.
Franken is up for election in 2020. He might be unelectable with the combination of accusation and visual photo: they support each other in a 30 second spot. If so, there might be a case for Franken announcing that he won’t run for re-election. Maybe he could run for mayor somewhere.
So it’s a coded denial/signal of future intent. Maybe. At any rate he has said that he will cooperate with a Senate investigation, which I’d argue would be salutatory. A full house censor of Franken would put a number of assholes on the record.
to clear things up, I said that was a good column because the author pointed out the GOP using this stupid idea that the election “overrules” any charges against trump for assaulting women. I certainly don’t agree with that concept .
From an Associated Press story describing how four different women have now accused Franken of groping and/or harassment:
It’s always a great disappointment when leaders you like and admire do bad stuff," said Mike Lux, a liberal Democratic consultant. He said it was premature to say how the allegations would affect Franken’s career. But, Lux added, “If more incidents come to light, he’s got a real problem.”
OK, so four accusers, no problemo. Any more though, and look out. :smack::dubious:
Something like this has been my take for a long time. I’m slowly moving away from it. For one thing, knowing about men in power getting away with assault with impunity has a chilling effect on women (or, in the case of Gianforte, on journalists). For another thing, knowing about men in power NOT getting away with assault has a chilling effect on sexual predators.
So yeah, I can’t discount votes, and I’m not voting for someone based on their character. On the other hand, I can’t discount the secondary effects of letting, or not letting, someone like Franken get away with it.
But the GOP doesn’t really believe that, right? They believe that, even if a guy is elected, he can still be found guilty of criminal charges or sued for civil damages to the exact extent that he could before the election; they believe that courtroom proceedings involving sexual assault aren’t literally overruled just because a whole bunch of people voted for him – and by “literally” I of course mean “at all”.