Don Wooten and I don't often agree politically. But for once, we do - at least in part ("Women force out a potent champion," Viewpoints, Dec. 17).
Former state Sen. Wooten wrote in reference to the allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Sen. Al Franken, "Congressional women [have forced] the resignation of one of their champions. ... What I found unconscionable was the rush to pass judgment before there was evidence to do so. ... No one should be drummed out of office this way, without some kind of objective judgment."
Sen. Wooten deplores the rush to judgment" He states his case in terms of evidence and objective judgment, I agree with him on that, although, I would prefer to make the argument in terms of due process: procedural due process, fundamental fairness.
Due process in America addresses the question, what process is or procedures are, required in a given case, consistent with fundamental fairness.
In our country, due process in a state criminal trial has come to mean essentially the procedures specified in our Bill of Rights. But even within the narrow context of U.S. criminal law, what amounts to due process varies depending on the stage of the proceeding.
For an arrest or search warrant to issue, the state must establish "probable cause." At trial, the state must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a probation revocation hearing, the state must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant violated his probation.
Due process also applies to civil cases. For example, at a hearing to suspend or revoke a liquor license, the moving party must prove the violation by the greater weight of the evidence.
In a state court felony (criminal) prosecution, due process requires that the defendant has the right to hire an attorney; if he can't afford an attorney, he gets a free one. Due process does not require that in most civil cases. If you run somebody over with your car and get sued, you may have the right to hire an attorney, but you generally don't get a free one.
At a minimum, however, procedural due process in America means you get a written specification of the charge against you, and an opportunity to dispute that charge before an impartial tribunal - but not necessarily before a jury.
So when a man is charged with sexual misconduct by a woman in the newspapers, or on radio or TV, what does due process require? The argument has been made that a woman would never lie about being sexually abused. That is as mindless as saying that a man would never lie when he denies engaging in sexual abuse.
Attorney Lisa Bloom has now been accused of offering a woman $750,000 to make allegations of sexual misconduct against President Trump. That woman apparently refused. However, another did "speak out" - after her $30,000 mortgage was paid off, and after she received "fees for licensing photos."
My experience in the affairs of life tells me that some women lie. Others, like my mother and my Aunt Nell wouldn't have lied at gunpoint. Some men lie; others don't.
The point is simply this: When a woman publicly asserts that she has been the victim of sexual misconduct, abuse, or exploitation, she deserves a fair hearing. If the male accused then makes a denial, he deserves a fair hearing.
In politics, most of these charges and denials appear in the papers, and on TV, etc. They never get to court. Nevertheless, as rational voting citizens, we become the jury, and have a duty to use our best judgment to decide the truth or falsity of the charges.
In doing so, we employ the tools that any juror would employ, i.e., is there corroboration? Why has the victim waited 50 years to make her charge? If $55 million is being spent to win a House seat, is part of that money being used to induce victims to come out of the woodwork to accuse one or both candidates of acts of sexual misconduct? Do the accuser and the accused have reputations for always being truthful? For occasionally being truthful, etc.?
I agree with Don Wooten. A has a right to accuse. B has a right to defend. Truth is best served when the voters behave like an impartial jury.
Posted: QCOline.com January 4, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment